Blog

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

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

Recommendations for Event Groupings

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

Four recommended approaches to event groupings are:

Event Sequencing Based on Competition Scenarios

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

Time Program-Based Grouping

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

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

Pair by Rhythm and Technique

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

Grouping by Metabolic Demands

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

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

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

Recommendations for Competition and Event Selection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for Psychological Preparation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for Multi-Meet Management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for Training Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Successful Sample SPP/Peaking Cycles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

What Is a Healthy Human Microbiome?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These factors that cause dysbiosis are influenced by:

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Dietary Factors That Affect Gut Health

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

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

The impact of diet breaks down into:

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

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

Western Diet

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cue to the aging athlete’s future brain health.

Food Components and Specific Foods

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Evidence-Based Research on Probiotic Supplementation Helping Alleviate Daily Stressors

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

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

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

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

GI Complication Severity

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

 

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

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

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

Upper Respiratory Tract Infections Associated with Training

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Inflammation

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

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

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

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

International Travel

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

 

Recommendations Regarding Probiotic Supplementation

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should We Supplement with Probiotics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Key points from the study:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Practical Advice

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

Winning at Sport and Life Takes Guts

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

 

Twenty years ago I did my first Seattle to Portland (STP) bike ride in one day. The event typically attracts 10,000 participants and covers a distance of 206 miles. Four of us finished in approximately 11 and a half hours. I felt a lot of pride by putting in my share of the workload. I didn’t just sit and draft behind the others.

After completing that ride, I took a long break from cycling to begin raising a family and start my own training facility in the Portland, Oregon area, Performance Training Center. About eight years ago I resumed endurance training: cross country skiing, running, hiking, and cycling. A big reason for getting back was my desire to train this type of athlete. What better way to learn than by using myself as a test subject? This led me to research how the top athletes in those disciplines trained and learn about the science driving how coaches planned long-term and short-term goals.

I discovered the first major point on training volume and intensity by studying the world’s best XC skiers. About 80% of their annual training volume (800+ hours) is at an intensity between 120-140 bpm, with higher intensity training making up the other 20%. This made perfect sense to me, as accumulating both high volume and higher intensity would have a negative impact on performance. With this new strategy in place, I set a personal long-term goal for the next four years: year 1 – 500 hours, year 2 – 550 hours, year 3 – 600 hours, and year 4 – 650 hours.

Initially, I used three different assessments to determine my progress. The first was daily measurement using the Omegawave system. Second was the Polar RSX-800 heart rate monitor with GPS, which enabled me to track speed, distance covered, average HR, and maximum HR over a variety of routes. The third measurement, which was subjective, was the rate of perceived exertion (RPE) during training, on a scale of 1-7 (1 being the easiest). During this period I had considerable success with a few key biomarkers: my resting heart rate dropped from 65 bpm to 45-50, my HRV scores improved, and so did my speed at anaerobic threshold in cycling, running, and XC skiing. I did all my training alone, with improving my biomarkers as my internal motivation. I did not compete in any races.

 

After the first four years, I repeated the same yearly volume as part of my education. At the beginning of this year, I got the itch to compete again to gauge my progress. I called one of the friends with whom I had ridden my first STP to ask if I could join his group. When he said “sure,” I knew I needed to have my training dialed in. I dropped running and XC skiing and focused just on cycling. In early March, I was introduced to a new (to me) product that changed the way I looked at assessing my training and caused me to move forward in an entirely new dimension.

Moxy Monitor

This product—which became my fourth method of assessment—is the Moxy Monitor. As the company’s website says, “Moxy provides real-time physiologic feedback. . . . It uses light from the near-infrared wavelength spectrum (light from about 670 to 810 nm) to measure oxygenation levels in muscle tissue. Human tissue has a low optical absorbance of near-infrared light, so the light can travel to reasonable depths in the muscle. The near-infrared wavelength range is particularly useful because hemoglobin and myoglobin change color in that range depending on whether or not they are carrying oxygen.”

When a colleague introduced me to Moxy, I wanted to learn more about how it could assist my training. Fortunately, the staff at Herriott Sports Performance, a bike shop in Seattle, had been using this technology for the past four years. I called co-owner David Richter to set up my first Moxy test, which consisted of riding my bike on a trainer. I had a Moxy unit attached to each quad. They relayed signals to a TV screen showing my live muscle oxygen saturation (Sm02) and hemoglobin levels. David also monitored my power output and heart rate. This assessment involved a series of steps that followed a pattern of four minutes of riding, followed by a one-minute break. After four or five steps, David identified the heart rate training and wattage zones on which my training protocols would be based. Here is the report he gave me:

You were limited by recruitment. If a muscle can’t utilize O2 any longer, the brain shuts down recruitment. You had available O2, but couldn’t use it. How do you use it? There’s a thing called the Dissociation Curve. It controls your bioavailability of O2. A rightward shift causes a decreased affinity for O2. This makes it difficult for hemoglobin to bind to O2. But it makes it easier for hemoglobin to release O2 bound to it. A leftward shift in the curve causes an increased affinity for O2. . . hemoglobin binds with O2 more easily. But it unloads more reluctantly. You need to move the curve to the right (to release O2). . . only when you’re near maximum effort. Then back to the left (to pick up O2).

Can you see the catch-22? It’s a shell game. It’s a game that is tough to control. It’s a game that is played by your brain, whether you like it, or not. But there are some things that you can do to take control of that curve temporarily. Breathing coordination is how you accomplish that. . . you can temporarily take charge of that curve by regulating CO2. An increase in CO2 results in a decrease in blood pH. But that’s where you play with fire. If you can’t get rid of that CO2, then you have a different problem.

Better breathing coordination will make you better. . . and help with recruitment.

Something else to be aware of, concerning breathing improvement, is that cyclists expend a lot of energy stabilizing their trunk to optimize power production. Breathing and core stabilization are in competition. Breathing costs. . . so, demand for breathing by increasing breath volume is more efficient than increasing the frequency. Breath training will be very useful for you. A great place to start is a POWERbreathe. I started with that in 1996 and have been using it since. Great tool. We should have them back in the Pro Shop this week.

Here are your zones:

• Active Recovery (AR) 0-119bpm/0-189watts
• Structural Endurance Intensity (STEI) 120-149bpm/190-259wattsFunctional Endurance Intensity (FEI) 150-175bpm/260-330watts
• High Intensity (HI) 176+bpm/340+watts

This assessment made me think about assessments, training, and the many other factors involved in planning training, intensity, volume, and recovery. I was very excited to get to work using my new training zones. I also scheduled another Moxy assessment for five weeks out to see how I was improving.

Bike Fit

During this first test David noticed that my bike position did not look right, so we scheduled a bike fit prior to my next appointment. David has been doing bike fitting for eight years and has worked with some of the world’s top professionals. The objective is putting you in the best possible position to work efficiently through a series of measurements, including saddle height, cleat position on the pedal, seat fore/aft position, reach to handlebars, width of handlebars, and stem height. David used lasers after each tweak was completed to make sure I was tracking in the proper line. Three things jumped out as areas with the biggest potential for performance improvement: saddle height (we raised it 1.5”), cleat position, and handlebar width and stem length.

Making Progress

During the next five weeks, I trained on average 14 hours per week, with 80% of the volume in the STEI zone (structural endurance intensity), 10% in the FEI zone (functional endurance intensity), and the balance in AR (active recovery). Here are the results David sent me of my second Moxy assessment after five weeks of training and my new bike setup:

• AR – 0-120bpm/0-220watts
• STEI – 121-140bpm/221-275watts
• FEI – 141-168bpm/280-350watts
• HI – 169+bpm/360+watts

The POWERbreathe training will change your game. . . but not as much as your new position did! I look forward to seeing you in a few more weeks, to see more progress.

Armed with my new zones and bike position, it was time to get back to work. I had another assessment scheduled for five weeks out. I kept the same percentages of work I had used in the previous training block in each training zone. I also kept volume per week at the same level. At this time, I was only using heart rate to keep me in my training zones as I did not have a power meter. I planned to purchase one on my next visit.

I returned to Seattle on May 8 for my final test before STP. I was feeling good about the training I had done over the past five weeks and felt like the improvements on this test would be very good. Here are the results Dave sent me from test #3:

• AR – 0-124bpm/0-225watts
• STEI – 125-152bpm/226-280watts
• FEI – 153-170bpm/280-350watts
• HI – 171+bpm/365+watts

A trend that I have identified is something we slightly touched on, a L/R difference. Your right leg is working harder (especially at lower workloads). My guess is that it’s more than a strength issue, a coordination issue, as well. So, I’d recommend some isolated leg strength training off the bike. . . or PowerCranks. Simple functional movements are all you need. . . single-legged exercises to help with the coordination. Pedaling millions of times helps, too!

Good job with the breathing, biggest improvements there. . . your smO2 dropped the lowest to date and tHb higher throughout this evaluation. . . built capillaries. . . a better delivery system. Keep cranking and talk with you soon.

These would be my training zones leading up to STP on July 11. For the next three weeks, I would work in the same % for the zones: 80% in the STEI, 10% in FEI, and 10% in AR.

#BloodDontLie

I have had blood work before, but it was always to test basic cholesterol, blood glucose, white blood cell, and so forthbasic health markers vs. anything performance-oriented. I spoke with Carl Valle, the head of innovation at InsideTracker, about getting myself tested and begin a N=1 experiment on my-self. Here is what InsideTracker is looking at, according to their website:

InsideTracker is a personalized health analytics company founded by leading scientists, physicians, nutritionists and exercise physiologists from MIT, Harvard and Tufts University. The InsideTracker platform tracks and analyzes key biochemical and physiological markers and applies sophisticated algorithms and large scientific databases to determine personalized optimal zones for each marker. InsideTracker’s expert system offers science-driven nutrition and lifestyle interventions that empower people to optimize their markers. When optimized, these marker levels have been scientifically proven to increase vitality, improve performance and extend life.

Our goal is to empower individuals with the essential information they need to manage and optimize their health. We believe that by providing a dynamic, personalized analytic platform at the intersection of biology, science and technology, then distilling the results into simple, natural, and sustainable nutrition and lifestyle recommendations to follow, we can help people live longer, healthier lives.

 

The beauty of the InsideTracker assessment is that it provides food, lifestyle, and training suggestions to assist you in bringing these elements into an optimal zone for you. The personalization is world-class. I signed up for the Ultimate panel, which looks at 30 biomarkers in addition to providing a bonus “inner age” score. I had the results quickly. The two markers needing immediate work were blood glucose and testosterone/free testosterone and their relationship with cortisol. Since this was a base-line test, I would continue to train as I had been.

Following the blood test, I began a concentrated loading phase in which I would perform seven training sessions in a four-week period in the FEI level at an HR of 152-171 bpm. I would perform an FEI session on Monday based on my readiness level according to my daily Omegawave assessment. These sessions consisted of 20-60 minutes of intervals (10-20 minutes of work followed by 5-10 minutes of easy riding). Then for the next 1-3 days I would do training sessions in the AR. When my Omegawave readiness was back to my baseline level, I would go out for another hard interval session. On some days, my muscles would be sore when I would go hard during the intervals, even though my readiness scores for my cardiac and central nervous systems were optimal . When this occurred, I would go home and not try to push it.

During this block, I used two performance markers to gauge my progress. The first was a 20-minute interval, in which I tracked distance, speed, and power output. The other was a hill climb. My 20-minute interval improved from 6.6 miles, 18.7 mph, and 287 watts to 7.7 miles, 21.7 mph, and 326 watts. My hill climb dropped from 10:06 to 8:59.

Sleep Monitoring

After my initial blood test through InsideTracker, Carl and I discussed sleep quality and monitoring because poor sleep can lead to lower testosterone levels. Following up on Carl’s suggestion, I purchased the Misfit Flash, a movement and sleep tracker. The first 30-45 days were strictly to begin collecting data and implement a few simple ideas to promote better sleep quality.

First, I turned off my phone, laptop, and iPad two hours prior to going to bed. Then I began sleeping with a blackout mask to keep out as much light as possible. It is very interesting to see how you truly sleep, if you are getting a good 7-9 hours, and how much restful sleep you get vs. being restless and waking a lot during the night.

 

Race Day Arrives

For several weeks before the race, average temperatures ranged between 85-95 degrees F, which in Oregon and Washington state is out of the ordinary. So wouldn’t you know it—on race day it decides to be overcast with a strong chance of rain! I rolled out as part of a group of eight riders at 4:45 AM. During the first part of the ride, everyone wants to go super-fast. As a veteran, I needed to remind the newbies that we had a long day ahead of us and that they should keep calm and not burn too much energy too soon. Twelve hours and change later I finished. Average moving speed was 18.9 mph. My energy throughout the ride was very good, and I handled the changes in tempo fairly well even though I had not ridden at those speeds for any distance over 100 miles in a long time.

 

As you can see, this was a very long-term progression that ended successfully with a respectable time. In terms of assessment and monitoring these days, the options seem to be endless. The key is being able to understand what you are tracking, getting a clear picture of what the data means, and recognizing how it equates to improved performance. This process takes time and having patience becomes a key component of long-term success.

I would like to thank a few people. First and foremost is my wife, Deb McLaughlin. Without her full support, love, encouragement, and putting up with my endless research, none of this would have been possible. To Carl Valle, for showing me another way to think about monitoring and how to take it a step further in how we relate it to improved performance. To Coach “Rio,” for introducing me to the Moxy Monitor, his keen insight regarding performance enhancement as it deals with endurance sports, and his expertise in assisting in my training. Finally to my editor Peter Ingleton, who made me an offer a few years back to assist me in my writing endeavors. I am extremely happy I took him up on that offer. He makes me sound like I know what I am writing about.

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

 

I am one of the (increasing) many who say that “The Basics” must be in place first in order to optimize any training program. They work, they’ve always worked, and they will continue to work forever! I also know what I think are the basics—the fundamentals, the groundwork for future work, the basis from which all else grows.

However, even though I have lightly defined the term, someone could still say that I haven’t told you what exactly “the basics” means, and they would be 100% correct. While lots of folks mention that we should get back to the basics, it begs another question: If everyone says it’s time to get back to the basics—implying that many coaches are not using the basics—then why are we not getting back to the basics?

Perhaps because there is no general, agreed-on consensus as to what the basics are. It could very well mean that the basics have several definitions and that all those definitions are correct. Maybe. So why not use Merriam-Webster to get the true definition of “the basics”?

Definition of basic:

1. a: of, relating to, or forming the base or essence: fundamental. basic truths
   b: concerned with fundamental scientific principles: not applied. basic research
2. a: constituting or serving as the basis or starting point. a basic set of tools

There is no question that we all understand the meaning of “basic.” The question is whether we understand the meaning as it relates to training and building performance models based on a yearly plan of periodization. Here’s my perspective of what this means in my philosophy; perhaps it will ring true to some of you reading this.

The Reason I Say, ‘Get Back to the Basics’

Generally, I say this because I watch coaches hasten the training process—too much, too soon; too complex, too soon; skipping steps towards the best performances. A few examples are younger, less-experienced athletes performing complex lifts, lift variations, or multi-response single leg plyometrics and skilled athletes of any age performing advanced training based on their sport skill level.

It’s not exclusive to training, either. The use of athlete tracking systems when other aspects of the program are weak or absent (sports nutrition, training compliance, sport coach strength and conditioning buy-in) ignores the fundamentals of development. I know of one organization willing to fund an annual six-figure commitment to the purchase of tracking equipment before committing to a full-time sport nutritionist. To me, that’s skipping necessary steps and improperly forming the basis for the best possible future results.

I think this quote I picked up years ago sums it up nicely:

“We need to realize that building a system to reduce risk needs to start with the basics and build vertically step by step, instead of taking the express elevator to the top and finding the foundation crumbling beneath us!”–Carl Valle, Boston Sports Medicine and Performance Group, LLC Blog, 1/8/14

The gist of this is easy to understand. Sure, beginning with the basics ensures risk reduction when it comes to injury, but it also ensures physical performance improvement. The crumbling foundation could mean injury but also less-than-best performances camouflaged as “good” performances.

Starting with the basics ensures injury risk reduction as well as physical performance improvement, says @Coach_Alejo. Share on X

From my vantage point, identifying a lack of the basics is mainly part physiology and part common sense. When Kyle Kennedy of Razor’s Edge Performance in Canada tweeted, “I’m not against “mastering the basics”, but there’s no consensus on what that means,” my first reaction was that of course everyone knows what the basics are. Only when I started writing about it did I see he was right. I couldn’t put the damn thing in a finite box; ergo, no consensus. Although science, and what it looks and smells like, helps identify the basics, there are a bunch of layers to this. My only weapon against this is to start the dialogue with my examples and the rest is up to, as they say in the South, y’all!

Real-World Examples: Skipping the Basics

The following are three real examples that I see where coaches skip the basics and ignore science. I point out what they’re doing wrong, and why.

Get back to the basics! – Young or physically underdeveloped baseball athletes swinging a bat connected to resistance cables, with full or partial swings.

Here’s why – First of all, this type of “sports-specific” training has never proved helpful. If I’m wrong, please contact me and persuade me with the volumes of anecdotal or scientific information; a topic for another day. I’d say the more important questions is: Does the player have a good swing to begin with? My initial thought isn’t a strength and conditioning question or even science-related. So, even if this drill strengthens the movement—and it doesn’t—it won’t matter anyway if the player doesn’t have good swing mechanics.

The basics of strengthening a good swing would be to have a good swing! Second, the operative words are that the athlete is “young or physically underdeveloped.” There has been some research by David Szymanski suggesting that total body strengthening is just as good as “baseball-specific” training (additional forearm exercises) for high school baseball players for creating bat head velocity.^1,2,3

Three 12-week studies from three different states and three different years indicated that full body exercises were just as good as total body exercises with supplemental forearm training. And, by the way, the groups that did no forearm training still increased grip strength, showing that gripping barbells and dumbbells while training is beneficial in young athletes. There’s nothing shocking here, as any sport biomechanist would tell you that the entire body swings the bat and throws the ball—it is a chain of events.

All this means that the basics for strengthening a swing are to perform a total body strengthening program, and improve and acquire a good swing through batting practice while the weight training program contributes strength to the swing over time. After acquiring a standardized level of strength AND swing mechanics in the trained population, the athlete might begin to use heavier or lighter bats that are weighted enough that the swing is not altered. Research has suggested a weight only a few ounces more or less than the game bat. Additionally, total body power exercises can begin at this time: squat jumps, high pulls, and single response-body weight plyometrics.

Get back to the basics! – Sloppily pulled or pushed weighted sleds.

Here’s why – No coach wants to practice poor technique, so why have sloppy anything? That’s basics, isn’t it? Poor technique leads only to one question: Are you coaching what you are seeing?

If the technique you are looking at is not what you want, a) Don’t post it as a video, and b) Make sure the athlete can perform the exercise correctly. In this case, can the athlete push/pull an unweighted sled? I know it sounds silly, but it’s common sense. If the athlete can perform a push/pull without weight then weight is the problem.

I do the same with weighted lifting exercises. Sometimes the weight (light or heavy) dictates the technique even during technical acquisition. Pulls from the ground are the perfect example. Occasionally, during the beginning stages, coaches might add a little more weight than the athlete can handle; their legs straighten at the moment of separation, they don’t pull the bar high enough during the second pull. That’s the time when you go back to the bar and check whether they can perform the movement unloaded. If they can, the weight is the problem and the correct loads are somewhere between the bar and the bad-technique weight. If they can’t, start at the beginning.

If the athlete is not that much better at sled-only load, then there are plenty of places to look: lower body strength; core strength; functional movement screen assessments; overall running technique (in particular, starting technique); and 10m runs. Sled push/pulls have been shown to improve starting and running speed. However, performing them incorrectly allows for little or no benefit and it could result in an acute or chronic injury. Master the basics before getting to the sled—get strong and acquire good running technique. After that, begin with a sled load that allows for the strength to come through in the form of good “drive angles,” and a solid torso to deliver force from the legs to the ground to the sled for locomotion.

Get back to the basics! – Young or physically underdeveloped athletes bench pressing or squatting with bands or chains.

Here’s why – Basic exercise science! I’m sure we can all agree that young and underdeveloped athletes make the fastest gains in the shortest amount of time. In fact, they probably make the most gains percentage-wise than in their entire life. We also know that overload and progression is a critical part of strength-gain, given the right pace and timing. If the speed of overload and progression is too quick for athletes who are not strong, the result is injury or, at the very least, a more rapid decline than normal in strength gains over time—neuromuscular overload is my theory.

Basic science tells you that with this type of athlete, the nervous system is the first adaptive mechanism, not muscle. Just learning the lift will increase strength, so it’s a cheap and easy way to gain strength. As the literature confirms, early strength gains with novice lifters are neural in nature, as demonstrated by little, if any, hypertrophy accompanying the increases in strength. Therefore, take your time.

I consider bands and chains as advanced techniques. If we are writing programs based on physical status and needs, advanced technique for beginners is an oxymoronical philosophy: It makes no sense. I’m not saying that inexperienced athletes won’t gain strength with bands and chains—they work and there’s research to back that up. What I’m saying (and so does the science) is that when you start too early with the complex stuff, the benefit is not as great. We want the most gains, right? Using the basics in this case means teaching the lift to proficiency, training for a length of time to gain a standardized strength level, and then assessing if a more complex level of training is needed to maintain the normal progress of strength gains in the program.

Common ‘Basics’ Tenets

Without beating around the bush, the following is a list of what we know to be true:

• Strength is the building block for power.
• Strength is the building block for speed.
• Strength is the building block for speed endurance.
• Strength is the building block for reducing the risk, severity, and incidence of injury.
  (See a theme here?)
• Two- or one-legged squat technique and strength are the basis for optimizing squat jumps, multi-response plyometrics, banded or chain squatting, and heavy partial movements.
• Bench press, squat, and deadlifting (powerlifting or Olympic) technique and strength are the basis for optimizing banded or chain squatting, and heavy partial movements.
• Coordination is the basis for agility.

I’m sure this list is not comprehensive, as I was not intent on making this article the definitive masterpiece but rather a start for thoughts going forward. Additionally, when we talk about strength over a spectrum of qualities of varying energy sources, the absolute measures are very different. No one would argue that the strength necessary for sprinting 100 meters is the same as for running a 10K.

However, there is a relative strength—individual as it may be—optimizing performance in a 10K. Even now we see that vertical jump height, usually used as a marker or assessment for power, is associated with faster times in distance events. This leads to a theory that if strength is part of the power equation, then it has value when looking at jumping performance.

The Basics Are the Basis

Definitively, “The Basics” serve as a starting point, forming the basis of training regardless of the athlete’s chronological or training age. I agree with what I hear and read from some of my colleagues: Not following the basics means skipping steps in what is a multi-level training, teaching, or philosophical method intended to achieve the best results, often involving younger or physically underdeveloped athletes.

A too-much, too-soon approach with results that might appear favorable is misleading in terms of what could have been possible. Essentially, “taking the express elevator to the top” goes against science and, in some instances, best practice. Understanding basic scientific principles (neural adaptation, physiology, kinesiology) and following common sense helps to recognize and order the steps necessary to create the best path to the best outcome.

I have been there and I understand having to do the elementary stuff while yearning for the glitz and energy of the more fun and complex exercises. In the end, what keeps me on the steady course are the huge physical dividends that the athlete is going to experience down the road because I chose to teach their body the proper progression to its highest level.

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. Szymanski, DJ, Albert, JM, Reed, JG, Hemperley, DL, Moore, RM, and Walker, JP. Effect of overweighted forearm training on bat swing and batted-ball velocities of high school baseball players. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 22(6): 109-110. 2008.
2. Szymanski, DJ, McIntyre, JS, Szymanski, JM, Molloy, JM, Madsen, NH, and Pascoe, DD. Effect of wrist and forearm training on linear bat-end, center of percussion, and hand velocities, and on time to ball contact of high school baseball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 20(1): 231-240. 2006.
3. Szymanski, DJ, McIntyre, JS, Szymanski, JM, Bradford, TJ, Schade, RL, Madsen, NH, and Pascoe, DD. Effect of torso rotational strength on angular hip, angular shoulder, and linear bat velocities of high school baseball players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 21(4): 1117-1125. 2007.

After a tremendous experience teaming up with Erik Jernstrom and Ryan Baugus in the EForce Sport off-season to work with a group of NFL hopefuls and veterans, I started a second off-season project with an area college basketball athlete. Mark McLaughlin, Director of Coaching Education for Omegawave North America, has trained this athlete for years and he invited me to help better assess his training process.

Let’s be clear: We already have a solid understanding of the athlete’s strength and conditioning program. Mark has done tremendous work over the years to help develop this young man, and his athlete-centered philosophy is to thank for the numerous, repeated successes his athletes have achieved. Bringing me onto this project had a bigger element in mind: skill development.

As I shared in previous SimpliFaster articles, there is a real need in sport science to continue to connect the dots between performance, monitoring and assessment, interventions, and performance outcomes. This current project helps us form the foundation for assessing the athlete performance process and connecting to its most meaningful outcome: game performance.

There are some people in strength and conditioning and sport science who maintain that what happens in competition is out of their hands; they improve the athlete, and it is up to the athlete to display their skill in competition. Others claim their programs are instrumental in helping their teams stay healthy and perform better. I believe in a slightly different approach that considers strength and conditioning, rehabilitation, practice, recovery, and games as all part of a single performance process.

Tactics aside, the way we train athletes in the off-season absolutely influences how they can optimally, sustainably, and consistently display their skill in practice and competition. Here is an explicit example: If you train your offensive linemen using only long, slow endurance runs, are they going to be the most powerful blockers at the line of scrimmage? Clearly, they will lack certain physical tools to optimally and sustainably maintain a maximal effort block for several seconds in a highly reactive environment, every 15 to 30 seconds, for 5 to 9 minutes, 8 to 12 times a game. So, while strength and conditioning isn’t teaching athletes how to perform a sport-specific skill, it is absolutely giving them physiological and mechanical skills to execute the tactic.

This example brings us back to the original reasons of this project, determining:

• How are we asking questions about the ways training and recovery may, or may not, have an influence on the actual performance of the sport in competition?
• How could we possibly nail down the right variables to monitor and assess?
• Just what is the exact question we are trying to ask about the effects of training and recovery on skill performance in competition?

Initially, Mark wanted to ask a much bigger question about skill-building sessions and practice. After assessing all the factors related to the variables and KPIs we monitor, I determined we needed to simplify our approach to the order of our investigation. Do readiness and recovery have an effect on skill performance outcomes?

Part of the theoretical construct I base this line of questioning on comes from research performed on collegiate athletes at Stanford University. While pure physical traits such as speed and skills such as domain-specific reaction time will, in theory, help boost performance, these studies outline sport-specific skills that get better following the improvement of specific recovery strategies such as sleep duration.

With these concepts in mind, in the last five years I have focused on the discovery, interpretation, and communication of meaningful information in sport that staff can directly apply to improving their team’s performance. Like many others, I fell in love with the idea that technology could help us measure every aspect of performance, recovery, health, and wellness. I was certain that GPS would help us unlock the truths about crazy practice loads and the reasons that teams fail in games. Perhaps we all were a bit too zealous in thinking that technology was going to solve every problem, but it helped us to start asking different questions of ourselves.

The idea for my Pyramid of Performance Analysis began back in August 2012, as I was going through the local newspaper and reading about an abundance of injuries in NCAA football teams during fall camp. Recalling my own time trying to survive camp as a college football player, I strongly felt back then that there were better ways to prepare a team to perform. There was an explicit feeling I had on the field, which my teammates shared, when we were strong, fast, fresh, and ready to play. Perhaps “flow-state” is too cliché to describe this feeling, but our team performance spoke for itself.

Likewise, when the three-plus hour-long full-contact practices started adding up, our game performance began suffering. The feelings we had about our own well-being, recovery, etc., were not the same as in the weeks and months before. Our body language, our physical performance, and our game performance suffered. This had nothing to do with the fabled “mental toughness” trait peddled by coaches for decades, and everything to do with how fatigue impacted our play.

Central, peripheral, neural, tissue—whichever label or paradigm you subscribe to, the fatigue was present. I sensed it, my teammates sensed it, and the scoreboard showed it. The acceleration out of a break in a route? Gone. The extra push off the line of scrimmage in man-blocking? Gone as well. Our ability to execute our tactics in a highly complex and reactive environment? Impaired. It didn’t matter if the right play was called, if we were aligned correctly, or even if we made the right read, we were a step slower and weaker when it came time to execute our tactics.

This experience was instrumental in influencing my approach to our investigation. Can we do a better job of identifying and presenting the factors that affect the sport-specific skill performance of an athlete? If we establish a firm foundation in our line of questioning, can we entertain a larger discussion about team performance in games? In the future, this will require us to see success first and then work backwards. Based on our team, our players, our systems, and our opponents, what does success look like for us?

Is scoring 70 points in a basketball game and winning by five points sufficient for our team? Is our defense giving up 80-plus points a game acceptable for our program? More specifically, are we sufficiently performing the traits, skills, techniques, and tactics we need to reach our goal of winning? And if we aren’t performing these traits to par, what are we doing to positively affect them? This last question is where all allied performance staff members should be contributing their skills to help maximize the specific physical and psychological traits the athletes need to execute the tactics and techniques.

Our current project starts with a basic question around readiness and recovery, and their relationship to basic, objective, sport-specific skill performance. In our case, we assess free-throw and three-point percentages in standardized shooting drills during “skill sessions” with private basketball trainers. Mark and I are not in charge of the skill sessions, but we receive daily feedback from the athlete via surveys in our athlete management system, Voyager. Based on our theoretical construct that readiness and recovery factors have an impact on sport-specific skill performance, we outline the data as follows:

In our system, we believe that these are the appropriate KPIs to use as independent variables that influence the dependent KPIs given our baseline investigation. It was crucial to include both subjective (recovery survey) and objective (Omegawave reading) information regarding readiness and recovery. Additionally, we included information from the athlete on the session RPE of the skill sessions.

In the coming weeks, we will expand the information to include the skill-session coach’s perception on session difficulty and player performance. From a data-collection standpoint, this may not be the most specific, sensitive, or reliable data source; however, including the coach’s feedback in our process serves a much bigger goal of relationship-building, education, and sport-specific input. From a sport science standpoint, one should pursue anything that can be done to build a bridge with the sport coaching staff. Sport science does not own all of the solutions to team performance by itself; it only exists to help find them.

Daily Procedures

Each morning, the athlete wakes up and uses their phone to complete the recovery survey inside their Voyager account. The survey has similar concepts to a popular recovery survey produced by John Abreu and Derek M. Hansen in 2014. The core concepts of our survey are based on McLean et al (2010) and Hooper & Mackinnon (1995)1,2.

A few minutes later, the athlete performs the Omegawave reading procedure from home as well. Mark took great steps to educate the athlete on a standardized scanning procedure for the Omegawave to help reduce errors in measurement. The subjective input from the athlete is received first, and the objective data collection via Omegawave is performed second. Some athletes can see the results of their scan and plan accordingly, but we have elected to limit the visibility of the results of our athlete’s scans during this specific period of his summer program.

The athlete performs two to three skill sessions each week, and has two to four training sessions as well. Mark programs and manages the timing and frequency of the training sessions depending on the athlete’s readiness. As stated before, we do not have influence on the timing, frequency, or intensity of the “skill sessions.” Mark elected to limit aerobic development and maintenance work in training, since we believe the skill sessions provide the stimulus to aid in accomplishing this task.

In the 15 to 30 minutes following each skill session, the athlete again uses his Voyager account to fill out a post-skill session survey. He inputs total free throws and three-pointers attempted and made, as well as a session RPE and total session time (in minutes). I establish a daily shooting percentage for each metric, as well as a rolling average for the summer skill sessions.

Initial Data Summary

As we continue to build the database on our athlete, we have formed basic descriptive statistics about the athlete’s recovery behaviors and Omegawave data, as well as his objective shooting performance. In the first month of our investigation, I chose to first focus on identifying the trends and relationships among the recovery and wellness factors. We are still building a more robust data set for our skills sessions, so making any type of inference based on a data set of N=10 would be premature. As the skill-based data builds, focusing on the recovery and readiness data allows us to start asking more specific questions. I intend to either trim down the data we collect in the future, or assess ways of fortifying the sensitivity of the KPIs we deem most important from this project.

The recovery survey is a five-point, five-question survey and includes a space for quantifying sleep time. Additionally, there is a space for the athlete to input any notes for me or Mark. Our athlete has averaged a total wellness score of 20.1 (out of 25) over the first month of our investigation. The standard deviation of each wellness indicator is below 1, which in this case means the athlete scores consistently from day to day in his wellness and recovery indicators.

Since we are partially basing our theoretical construct on sleep quality and time, it is worth noting that our athlete averages 8.23 hours of sleep per night, with a standard deviation of 1.34. His sleep data totals reflects this, as he only reported sleeping less than seven hours on one occasion (6.5 hours to be exact), and his other scores from that day hovered at or below their averages.

While basic descriptive statistics are a start, I wanted to know if there were actual relationships between our KPIs. I will emphasize “if” as being a big IF. From a statistical point of view, a correlation between two variables must pass a certain numeric threshold to be deemed significant. Unfortunately, people often throw around the term “significant” in both research and daily life. Additionally, it should be no surprise that something statistically significant may not be practically significant whatsoever. For statistical purposes, the following rules apply:

Based on these statistical rules of correlation coefficients, there were nine variables that showed large, positive strength of associations. The strongest relationship we found after the first month was between the subjective metric of “Energy” and the objective measure of “Fatigue” from the Omegawave (r=0.73). In theory, this makes sense as fatigue measured by the Omegawave is described as “the state of excessive or prolonged stress in response to physical and mental loads. How tired are the regulatory systems?”

If a strong statistical relationship exists between these two factors, how do each of them compare to the sleep metrics aligning with our theoretical construct? So far, Energy has a small, positive association with Sleep Quality (r=0.25) and a small, negative association with Sleep Quantity (r=-0.09). Fatigue has a small, positive association with Sleep Quality (r=0.17) and a small, negative association with Sleep Quantity (r=-0.02).

Does this mean sleep is not important, or that the strongest statistically associated variables have debunked the theoretical construct? Absolutely not! First, we are still in the primary stages of forming our database. Second, the factors with the strongest statistical association may have little to no impact on, or association with, the domain-specific skill of shooting a basketball.

As I dove deeper into the investigation, I wanted to better understand relationships between our KPIs. I elected to use a statistical procedure to compare the variability of the metrics. This asks a basic question: Do any two of our KPIs bounce around in similar ways? If the statistical procedure says they do, what are the underlying variables, and how will they inform our decision-making in the future? Remember, using something like an F-test is not a be-all and end-all statistical procedure, as has been well-documented in the athletic performance and sport medicine circles in recent years. We are simply using it as a primary step to reinforce our notions about how our KPIs might be related.

What is an F-test? It is essentially a ratio of the variances of a sample two metrics. Remember ratios as they are written in fraction form, a over b? Dividing the numerator by the denominator gives us the ratio we are looking for, and for our purposes, seeing a ratio close to 1 is an interesting starting point as we continue to ask questions. Going further into the F-test procedure from a statistical standpoint requires us to ask questions about our assumptions of the two variables. One assumption we test is that the variances are equal—termed the “null hypothesis.” The second is that there is a difference in the two variances—termed the “alternative hypothesis.”

Remember, it must be stated that a relationship, from a statistical standpoint, does not infer causality, and that any relationship, from a numeric standpoint, means very little without content knowledge and a theoretical construct to connect two variables. Think of it this way: I can prove to you that there is a perfect one-to-one correlation between athletes who score game-winning shots at University of XYZ, and athletes who wear Nike shoes at University of XYZ, given that University of XYZ is a Nike-sponsored school. See the point I make? Numbers can be deceiving unless you have a handle on both the variables you are dealing with and the statistical procedures you are using. No surprises there!

The results of our F-test procedures were not earth-shattering, aside from a very interesting (yet perhaps totally coincidental) relationship between two metrics. There was a perfect one-to-one relationship in the variances of Focus from our recovery survey and Fatigue from our Omegawave data. Remember, the Omegawave Fatigue score was also part of the strongest association in our correlation analysis, as it connected with Energy from our recovery survey (r=0.73).

Focus also shared a ratio close to 1 with Sleep Quantity (1.25). Of the 75 variance ratios we tested, we failed to reject the notion (or null hypothesis) that the variances were equal in 50 of the 75 cases. So, what on Earth does that mean from a practical standpoint? We could not, from a statistical standpoint, prove that there was a “significant difference” between the variances of the two variables in 50 of the 75 cases. The door is open for us to see relationships between the values of our KPIs in a correlation, as well as in the relationships of the variances among our KPIs.

This also means we have two options in our future analysis of recovery and readiness variables for basketball skill performance. Should we narrow down the variables we compare, or should we keep casting a wide net? The latter is essentially the idea of throwing a bunch of numbers at the wall and seeing what sticks. Since this is exploratory research for a case study, we need to cast a wide net. As we build to the future, the aim should be to simplify and assess as we, as a staff, continue to learn more.

The next step in this procedure is to incorporate our basketball-specific skill performance data into this analysis. From a practical standpoint, I am interested in seeing what the athlete’s variability of shooting performance is all by itself. We need to remember that, although we aimed to have a standardized procedure for assessing free-throw and three-point percentages, the procedure was most likely not perfect in each session. Does this mean our analysis is a total waste? No. However, we are charting new waters in this attempt and the information we gather will be a valuable lens to look through as we approach the competitive season.

Conducting this case study is allowing us to form a model of the way to assess an individual athlete’s recovery and readiness, and their possible relationship to sport performance. As we form a profile for one athlete, we will take the same model and apply it to a second. I have already established a second high-level basketball player here locally, training with Erik Jernstrom at EForce. We started to implement the same procedures and will undoubtedly learn a few of the same things, but we also hope to learn a few entirely different concepts. As we strengthen the model of assessing an individual basketball player, we will expand our player profiling to include the readiness and preparedness of physical traits critical to basketball performance. These will occur alongside psychological, technical, and tactic elements all playing a role in an athlete’s performance.

What we have already learned so far in our case study is that the KPIs we monitor in recovery and readiness reinforce Mark’s reasoning for using an athlete-centered model. Making inferences from this athlete’s results and applying them to other athletes would allow too much to slip through the cracks. Our athlete is tremendous at practicing basic recovery strategies around sleep and hydration, and shows interest in fortifying his nutrition plan and daily stress management. A second athlete might show signs of being a very poor sleeper and be inconsistent with hydration and nutrition. That second athlete will not need added recovery sessions or interventions until he or she can improve foundational recovery behaviors.

Concepts are broad and encompassing, but individuality is necessary to our approach. I look forward to sharing updated data analysis for readiness and recovery in the coming days and weeks, as well as their relationship with our athlete’s shooting percentage. We anticipate our skill session database to approach 20 sessions this week, which will allow us to compare information on the sessions from a more robust data set. Additionally, I look forward to shedding light on Erik and my experiences with our second case study involving a high-level basketball player.

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. McLean BD, Coutts AJ, Kelly V, et al. Neuromuscular, endocrine, and perceptual fatigue responses during different length between-match microcycles in professional rugby league players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2010; 5 (3): 367-383.
2. Hooper SL, Mackinnon LT. Monitoring overtraining in athletes. Recommendations. Sports Med 1995; 20(5):321-327.

Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) offers true benefits for sport performance professionals and those in the physical training and rehabilitation fields. If it were up to me, everyone would have their own EMS device to improve performance, manage fatigue and pain, enhance recovery, improve sleep, and elevate mood. This is not dissimilar to Bill Gates’ desire to have a “Computer on every desk, and in every home, running Microsoft software.” Although I’d like to think my motives are much more altruistic, I’ll leave that assessment to you after reading this article.

Research clearly shows that EMS can have positive effects on voluntary strength as well as abilities associated with improved muscle recruitment.¹ It’s also a highly effective means of educating people about the adaptability and plasticity of the nervous system. I’ve been using EMS with athletes for over twenty-two years, starting with a simple machine with relatively fixed parameters. Since then, I’ve worked with a wide variety of machines and technologies as well as thousands of athletes. And I reach the same conclusions over and over again:

• Electricity is a powerful tool to manage neurological processes and monitor the efficacy of these processes.
• The practitioner’s skill heavily outweighs the sophistication of the machine.
• Individual variability can be profound, so using a cookie cutter approach is both irresponsible and ineffective.
• Human adaptability is not only the question and answer but also the problem and solution.
• The brain governs all.

Having said this, I admit that the further you go down the EMS rabbit hole, the more you unearth questions rather than answers. Hence, my EMS experience has been an education discovering the nuances, raw patterns, and trends of nervous system responses rather than developing quick and easy solutions. Before you continue reading and trying to determine how EMS can solve all your problems and make life easier, be prepared to be thrown even more off balance. Up may appear down, left may look like right, and in may be out. This is how I like it. Certainty is not a place you want to exist, as it creates a situation where you’re unprepared for day-to-day life’s variability and unpredictability. Those who yearn for certainty are most definitely destined for disappointment.

During a walk in downtown Toronto with Charlie Francis, I asked him about the certainty of specific training approaches, and he replied:

“We can’t be absolutely certain of anything. There is no certainty that there will be a tomorrow. Science cannot prove that there will be a tomorrow. We believe there will be a tomorrow, because yesterday we were on this planet and today we are still on this planet. That is our only real proof. But, we could get run over by a bus at any moment during our walk today, and there might not be a tomorrow for us. Am I certain there will be a tomorrow? Absolutely not. I’m just expecting there will be a tomorrow, based on my prior experience.”

Needless to say, for the remainder of our walk I was hyper-aware of my surroundings and looking for large, speeding vehicles. Charlie’s way of looking at problems and his wariness of predictions has stuck with me in every aspect of my life, including the application of EMS.

In this article, I am not trying to sell anything or promote any particular approach to using EMS. I’m simply trying to communicate the reasons why I believe it’s a highly effective means of educating people about the adaptability and plasticity of the nervous system. When I introduce people to the concept of electrical stimulation, people immediately request “how to” solutions. “Where do I put the pads? How high do I turn up the intensity of the unit? How frequently should I use this program? How come it doesn’t come with a comprehensive instruction manual?” Aside from some very basic instructions on how to turn on the unit and some rough guidelines for pad placement, I tell them first and foremost to experiment with it.

The great thing about most EMS units is that you can’t damage yourself. Certainly you can cause pain and extreme discomfort, particularly if you get creative. While a barbell or kettlebell can do extreme amounts of damage to a person or facility if misused, EMS is one of the safer means of training, assuming you aren’t using it in the bathtub. As many of you have already found, trial and error is one of the most effective means of learning as long as you learn from your errors and make the necessary adjustments moving forward.

Referring back to my five conclusions regarding EMS technology, we can discuss the true benefits of electrical stimulation for the sport performance professional and others in the physical training and rehabilitation fields.

Electrical Stimulation for Monitoring and Managing Neurological Function

EMS’s biggest impact on my work has been in performance sport and return-to-competition scenarios where it provides information for assessing the status of an athlete’s peripheral and central nervous systems. Many studies have reported that electrical impedance is a byproduct of muscle damage and injury. The presence of edema reduces resistance to current flow, with healthy tissue offering more resistance. Recent studies also have determined that EMS can measure the severity of injury through localized bioimpedance measurement (L-BIA) and detection of physical gaps in muscle tissue, supporting the use of ultrasound and MRI.²

After reading the research, I initially thought that electrical stimulation detected structural disruptions in soft tissue. The more I worked with EMS in post-injury cases, however, the more I found that what I thought was impedance instead was a reflection of the nervous system’s tendency to inhibit function as a means of self-preservation. Pain alerts the brain that there’s potential for further damage to the body, and the brain shuts down specific motor units that could potentially lead to greater injury. The irony is that the brain’s natural tendency to inhibit function actually results in further impaired function and perhaps even a greater system failure concerning the body and brain. As we know, dysfunction and weakness in one area often lead to over-use issues and eventual failure in another area.

Case Study

EMS can confirm the nervous system’s inhibitory tendency during conditions of acute and chronic injury. I worked with an Olympic champion weightlifter who had acute and chronic knee pain that created an inhibitory response in her vastus medialis and other muscles in the quadriceps group. Greater inhibition of the nervous system created significant unbalanced stresses to the knee joint and significantly more pain. The chronic pain perpetuated the problem for one year before she consulted me–and we began using electrical stimulation.

The EMS device confirmed that significantly more current–three times that of the healthy VMO–was required to elicit a maximal contraction in the quadriceps. There was no scar tissue in the VMO, as the point of injury was the knee joint. Several MRI evaluations detected no muscular or connective tissue damage. However, the noxious stimulus created in the knee joint was essentially muting innervation to the quadriceps muscle group in a futile attempt to rectify the situation. In many ways, this response by the brain could be likened to an undesirable autoimmune response that wreaks havoc on the body where a genuine desire to help leads to unintended consequences.

EMS saved the day for this weightlifter by diagnosing the issue and ultimately recalibrating the brain to allow full recruitment in the quadriceps muscles over a period of four to six weeks. We integrated voluntary strength work with EMS to allow for a smooth transition to full function throughout the injured limb and the elimination of the pain pathway. While others were looking for obvious “hardware” problems, EMS helped to diagnose and remedy the “software” issues experienced by this athlete.

EMS of the vastus medialis can be a gateway into the status of the knee joint and hamstring. Share on X

I’m convinced that regular use of an EMS device can provide insight into the status of the athlete, particularly if we’re able to record the parameters of every session. In particular, diagnostic stimulation of the vastus medialis appears to be a gateway into the status of the knee joint and the hamstring, if not other aspects of the central and peripheral nervous systems. This observation is supported by the experiences of Italian researcher and performance coach, Giuseppe Gueli, who’s been using electrical stimulation technology with some of the top soccer and ice hockey players in the world for the last twenty years with data from thousands of high performing subjects.

The Practitioner’s Skill Outweighs the Machine’s Sophistication

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who uses tools effectively. I remember attending a fabulous workshop in 1993 conducted by Ted Wong, one of Bruce Lee’s dedicated students. He was the only student of Bruce Lee’s who was taught Jeet Kun Do from scratch with no previous martial arts experience. At the time of the workshop, Ted Wong was in his late fifties, weighing about 135lbs. I was amazed when a young strapping athlete who weighed about 280lbs could not take him down.

When asked about Bruce Lee’s proficiency with knives and nunchucks, Ted Wong replied, “Bruce was exceptional with everything. He could grab any household item and turn it into a deadly weapon. I remember one time when he grabbed a candlestick in his living room and was flinging it around like he was born to do it. Then, the candlestick flew out of his hand, and it almost took one guy’s head off!” There’s nothing like a firsthand Bruce Lee story to drive a point home.

My experience with EMS is no different. In my early work, I was always looking to purchase bigger and better devices to provide more profound results. As I acquired more expensive devices, I found that they didn’t deliver proportionately better results. Similar to my other training experiences, the more I focused on perfecting basic parameters such as timing, frequency, volume, and intensity of work, the more thorough and sustainable my results were. My experience with training athletes for sprinting speed was very similar. The more fixated we were on fancy shoes, supplements, training facilities, and resistance devices, the more the training went sideways. And the results were unsatisfying.

Effective electrical stimulation needs to be based on foundational principles that accumulate desirable outcomes on a consistent basis. If the athlete is not improving, something has to change. Making appropriate adjustments on the fly is critical, but it takes keen observational skills and an idea of how to optimally manipulate the protocols to yield positive responses. This is not a skill set that can be imparted in a book or video. It has to be honed over time through practice and more practice. I can point you in the direction, but you must find your own specific path. We must cultivate skills and intuition before accumulating tools and roadmaps.

Individual Variability Can be Extreme

The great thing about EMS is that the device is consistent and predictable. If you dial in 40 Hz as your frequency and 50 milliamps as your current intensity over a duration of 20 minutes, you can be pretty sure that the device will operate under those parameters (assuming you purchased the device from a reputable company). However, the responses that you observe from different athletes may be highly variable. In fact, it’s been suggested that the muscle adaptations induced by training with electrical stimulation could very well be more variable than those induced by voluntary training modalities.³

It’s important to recognize that not all EMS subjects are created equal. Responses can vary significantly depending on numerous factors, including:

• Muscle fiber composition. Research has confirmed that stimulation frequencies must be adjusted to elicit the most profound responses in individuals with a predominant muscle fiber profile. Athletes with a higher proportion of fast-twitch (Type 2) muscle fibers will require higher stimulation frequencies (70 to 100 Hz) to elicit a strong contraction for strength, power, and speed improvements using conventional EMS technology. Athletes who are slow-twitch (Type 1) dominant will respond more favorably to lower stimulation frequencies (30 to 50 Hz) to develop muscular endurance qualities.⁴

  It’s also important that different muscle groups have different composition profiles. Hence, stimulation frequencies must be adjusted based on the muscles groups you’re targeting. Hamstrings and the rectus femoris muscles tend to have a higher proportion of Type 2 fibers while erector spinae, deltoid, and soleus muscles tend to be slow-twitch oriented. EMS frequencies should reflect these differences during application. Also recognize that all muscles have a combination of fiber types that we must address through appropriate proportions of work.

• Athlete preparedness. Individuals who are in better overall physical shape will respond more profoundly to electrical stimulation than athletes who are poorly conditioned. Typically athletes who are healthy and in good physical condition will require lower levels of current to elicit positive responses. Consider this when implementing electrical stimulation sessions among a variety of athletes. Just because one athlete can tolerate a very high current intensity doesn’t mean that you apply the same current to another athlete. The athlete who’s in better shape may require significantly less current, and driving up the intensity to an extremely uncomfortable level may make the athlete less likely to continue with the protocols.
• Athlete readiness and fatigue. Research has shown that athletes who are fatigued will require higher levels of EMS current to elicit a strong muscle contraction. Thus, it’s very useful in monitoring athlete fatigue levels over time.⁵ We can argue that the brain intentionally won’t allow a muscle to be recruited if the athlete is not properly recovered to engage in vigorous exercise again. If an exogenous power supply is having difficulty recruiting a muscle group, then it leads to reason that an athlete may not be ready to participate in training or competition and that further participation may lead to muscle failure and a potentially devastating injury. This underscores the importance of maintaining ongoing records of previous sessions to establish baselines that you can compare over time. Also, while using EMS to identify fatigue, it can also enhance recovery from intensive training, particularly during sleep and travel.⁶
• Previous injury or trauma. When an athlete incurred a previous injury, we often need to increase stimulation intensities to achieve an adequate muscular contraction. This could be a short-term adjustment, or it may persist indefinitely depending on the severity of the previous injury. In some cases, the stimulation frequency may also need adjusting. Fast-twitch and slow-twitch muscles can atrophy at different rates, and we can often overlook slow-twitch recruitment in the desire to target the large motor units. Depending on the injury’s nature and location, we may need to apply different frequencies over time for a successful outcome.
• Chronic pain. Individuals with chronic pain may require a different approach. In my experience, chronic pain sufferers can tolerate extremely high intensities of electrical stimulation in the areas of the body where they feel pain. Lower back pain sufferers can often max out a machine because they’re so accustomed to the severe pain signals emanating from their back. In these cases, I’ve had more success targeting sites away from their chronic pain locations, where stimulation intensities are much lower and are felt much more profoundly, to create an adaptive response. The jury is still out on how EMS truly impacts chronic pain as it relates to the nervous system, and there are many theories behind the mechanism, whether inhibitory or excitatory.⁷
• Personality traits. In my experience, athletes who are considered “high strung” or observed as “anxious” required much lower current intensities to elicit a profound response. However, these athletes also responded much more profoundly to recovery-based protocols that involved lower frequency pulsing. In many ways, the athletes were over-responders to EMS, with a relatively low stimulation intensity required to provide a positive effect.
• Current medications. Athletes who take certain prescription medications may experience atypical results with EMS. It’s not uncommon for medications to have an impact on the efficacy of EMS. Several athletes who reported taking antidepressant medication could tolerate much higher levels than those who were not taking these medications. Take care to address these cases individually. Asking athletes about their medical history and current prescriptions could be extremely useful in ensuring a proper treatment approach.

  The drug naloxone, used to reverse the effects of opioids, particularly in cases of overdose, works by reversing the depression of the central nervous system caused by opioid compounds. When naloxone is applied intravenously, it results in a total reversal of electrical stimulation’s pain-relieving effects on the nervous system.⁸ Thus, nervous system activation or suppression via pharmaceuticals can have significant effects on the benefits of electrical stimulation and must be considered.

  Sometime it’s not advisable to increase the current’s intensity to the athlete’s maximum tolerance, particularly in the initial sessions. An iterative approach of choosing a relatively high intensity for the first few sessions allows you to assess the impact on the athlete the next day without creating undue soreness or discomfort that could negatively impact the athlete’s perception of the technology.

• Occupation. While this factor may not impact athletes, I find it interesting that the individuals most fearful of using EMS were those who were most commonly exposed to electricity in their occupations. Electricians and electrical engineers expressed the most apprehension about having electricity introduced into their bodies, and for good reason. The average person’s perception of electricity is that it’s dangerous and that feeling an electric shock is a negative experience. While we do not want to curb an individual’s natural fear of electricity, we can educate them about the specific parameters of EMS technology that allow us to use it for performance and therapeutic purposes.

Human Adaptability: Both the Question and the Answer; the Problem and the Solution

By using EMS, I’ve obtained a very good education in understanding human beings’ adaptability over time. My work with individuals experiencing long-term chronic pain has changed how I approach my work with athletes. EMS provides a very precise method to facilitate changes in the nervous system via current intensity that’s far and above the influence of other parameters.

With EMS, we can teach athletes to fire muscles more efficiently, relax muscles and minimize pain. Share on X

Neuroplasticity is the brain’s ability to reorganize itself by forming new neurological connections and pathways. With EMS, you can teach an athlete to fire muscles more efficiently, relax muscles and decrease tone, and minimize pain. These functions are the product of neuroplasticity and can be developed and sustained with long-term EMS use, as well as many other techniques, to impact afferent pathways and influence sensory and motor cortices.⁹

I’ve had exceptional results using EMS not only for improving performance but also managing injury. I can very safely introduce a very powerful stimulus into the body and nervous system while keeping track of the intensities achieved from session to session. I can also rotate the stimulus around the body to keep the nervous system adaptive, taking advantage of the neuroplastic benefits of EMS. In adult humans, rapid plastic changes in the motor and sensory cortices has been induced by alteration of afferent input.

By keeping the nervous system off balance and adaptive (plastic), we can advance the athlete much more quickly and profoundly without having to change many other elements in their training program. In this way, electrical stimulation can amplify the signal qualities of other training elements.

Electrical stimulation can amplify the signal qualities of other training elements. Share on X

The process becomes even more complex upon understanding that the brain can reorganize itself to resurrect, retain, and amplify past signals and tendencies. As Dr. Norman Doidge points out, “chronic pain is basically neuroplasticity gone wild.”¹⁰ The nervous system becomes more efficient at processing pain. An individual’s neuroplastic abilities can amplify and adapt the body to maintain chronic pain sensations as if the body is sounding an alarm about an injury that may no longer exist. When dealing with chronic pain, EMS must be profoundly intense but also extremely dynamic in how the stimulus is rotated and how other qualities, such as movement, are introduced in the treatment approach. The afferent properties of electrical stimulation and exercise, particularly in combination, can help re-pattern the brain to reflect a state of function, health, and wellness that does not require the production of chronic pain.

EMS can help re-pattern the brain to avoid the production of chronic pain. Share on X

The Brain Governs All

It’s important to know that your brain regulates everything that happens in your body, regardless of your beliefs regarding specificity of exercises and muscles. As soon as you begin to understand these neurology and physiology facts, it becomes easier to organize your thoughts around training and rehabilitation.

When I first started working with EMS, I was overly concerned with pad placement and precisely targeting specific areas of the body. While pad placement is important, I must stress that it’s not always obvious. For injury and pain management, working away from the symptomatic area has always yielded more sustainable and complete results. In situations where I attempted to improve excitability or readiness, working away from obvious locations has always produced enhanced results.

Stimulating quadriceps always improved hamstring performance. Targeting hip flexors resulted in improved posterior chain performance and reduced lower back pain. Stimulating the upper body has been extremely effective in preparing the lower body, and vice versa. Using EMS to produce powerful muscular contractions has ultimately resulted in a muscle relaxation effect and a sense of recovery. Most conventional recovery and loosening protocols involve lower intensity pulsing actions, and rehabilitation approaches have been overly cautious, leading to further down-regulation and disuse both centrally and peripherally.

While these responses may not make intuitive sense at first glance, when we begin to examine these scenarios from the brain’s potential responses, things begin to make more sense. Applying a strong stimulus in one area of the body tends to produce adaptive and compensatory responses throughout the body, particularly in the short term.

We have the ability to take advantage of these adaptive responses within specific windows of opportunity. In my opinion, EMS should always be followed by voluntary work to solidify new pathways created by these adaptive windows. For strength, power, and speed development, use of profound EMS on the hip flexors should be followed by dynamic hip extension work. Active lengthening of the hamstrings, whether by sprinting or kicking, could follow electrical stimulation of the quadriceps.

Individuals experiencing chronic pain have typically responded better when we provide intense stimulation away from the symptomatic areas. Although these approaches may not make sense to the individual receiving the treatment, their brain will recognize the opportunity for an efficient reorganization process and a more effective redistribution of organism energy.

Practical Tips

Here are some tips to get you started on your EMS journey:

• Documentation is critical. Take notes after every session and record all parameters applied (frequency, intensity, duration, work-rest ratios, etc.) and the observed and reported responses. This type of data collection is critical to compare case studies and determine the best approach for future cases. It will also remind you that there’s never a one-size-fits-all solution.
• Using electrical stimulation should rarely be a static experience. Incorporating different positions, joint angles, and movements can be more beneficial in providing a variation in afferent messaging for the brain. While my initial forays into electrical stimulation involved lying or seated positions–likely thrust upon me by the physical therapy community’s passive approach–I’ve achieved my most recent successes with protocols involving standing and moving, sometimes under high velocity or high load conditions. When athletes cannot move, for example after major surgery or injury, using EMS with immobilization is indicated. The goal, however, is to always push toward activity and movement.
• Exercise caution in an aggressive manner. When it comes to electrical stimulation–or simply training, for that matter–there’s a fine line between creating a profound response and torturing someone. There is no doubt that applying a high-intensity stimulus can yield exceptional results. However, balancing the highs with the lows is critical for both performance and rehabilitation success. As in training, high-intensity work must be followed by larger periods of recovery and measured doses of volume. In my experience, EMS microdosing has always produced greater effects than longer sessions of moderate intensity. The acute nature of high-intensity EMS appears to break up the malaise and stagnation experienced in conventional training, as well as in life. It’s advisable, though, to develop a progression of work that prepares individuals for the “shock” of electrical stimulation without obliterating their enthusiasm for the technology.

Concluding Remarks

When people ask me what brand of electrical stimulation device they should purchase when working with athletes, I’m pretty unbiased. Although I’ve worked closely with Globus products–primarily due to the flexibility of the platform upon which to build new protocols–I suggest people work within their budget first and foremost to gain competence and confidence. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve worked with dozens of different devices over twenty-two years, and I benefitted from all of them.

Having an EMS unit gives you a chance to learn how electricity interacts with your body and brain, and how different frequencies and intensities elicit different responses. In many ways, using an EMS device is very much like learning to use a camera. You’re much better off spending less money in the beginning and learning the basics through research and trial and error before spending a large amount of money. I’ve always maintained that using electrical stimulation helps us to better understand how to train or rehabilitate an athlete. I’m now more adamant about this point. My recent experiences working with individuals who have chronic pain reinforce this assertion. Learning is best facilitated by doing, observing, reflecting, and communicating on the fly.

After all is said and done, I’m relatively confident that the most effective application of EMS will closely mirror the philosophical approach that one uses in training athletes through conventional means. In the long run, those who truly understand that the goal of training is to create windows of opportunity for the organism to adapt and move forward in a manner that produces the most beneficial and applicable results will always tend to be more successful. In many ways, we need to think about specificity as it relates to the brain and central nervous system responses, as opposed to obsessing about peripheral applications. You will only truly understand this approach once you’ve jumped into the deep end and immersed yourself in the world of electrical stimulation. I invite you to start a refreshingly new era of training, recovery, and rehabilitation.

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. Filipovic, A., Kleinoder, H., Dormann, U., and J. Mester. Electrostimulation – A Systematic Review of the Effects of Different Electromyostimulation Methods on Selected Strength Parameters in Trained and Elite Athletes. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 26:9 (2012) 2600-2614.
2. Nescolarde, L., Yanguas, J., Terricabras, J., Lukaski, H., Alomar, X., Rosell, X., and G. Rodas. Detection of Muscle Gap by L-BIA in Muscle Injuries: Clinical Prognosis. Physiological Measurement. 38 (2017) L1-L9.
3. Minetto, M.A., Botter, A., Bottinelli, O., Miotti, D., Bottinelli, R., and G. D’Antona. Variability in Muscle Adaptation to Electrical Stimulation. International Journal of Sports Medicine. 34 (2013) 544-553.
4. Behringer, M., Grutzner, S., Montag, J., McCourt, M., Ring, M., and J. Mester. Effects of Stimulation Frequency, Amplitude, and Impulse Width on Muscle Fatigue. Muscle and Nerve. 53:4 (April 2016) 608-616.
5. Del Coso, J., Hamouti, N., Estevez, E., and R. Mora-Rodriguez. Reproducibility of two electrical stimulation techniques to assess neuromuscular fatigue. European Journal of Sport Science. 11:2 (2011) 95-103.
6. Taylor, T., West, D.J., Howatson, G., Jones, C., Bracken, R.M., Love, T.D., Cook, C.J., Swift, E., Baker, J.S., and L.P. Kilduff. The impact of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on recovery after intensive, muscle damaging, maximal speed training in professional team sports players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. April 2014.
7. Benabid, A.L., Wallace, B., Mitrofanis, J., Xia, C., Piallat, B., Fraix, V., Batir, A., Krack, P., Pollak, P., and F. Berger. Therapeutic electrical stimulation of the central nervous system. C. R. Biologies. 328:2 (2005) 177–186.
8. Hosobuchi, Y., Adams, J.E., and R. Linchitz. Pain Relief by Electrical Stimulation of the Central Gray Matter in Humans and Its Reversal by Naloxone. Science. 197:4299 (1977) 183-186.
9. Chipchase, L.S., Schabrun, S.M., and P.W. Hodges. Peripheral Electrical Stimulation to Induce Cortical Plasticity: A Systematic Review of Stimulus Parameters. Clinical Neurophysiology. 122:3 (2011) 456-463.
10. Doidge, Norman. The Brain’s Way of Healing: Remarkable Discoveries and Recoveries from the Frontiers of Neuroplasticity. Penguin Books, New York (2015).

“Say all that you want about periodization, about macrocycles, microcycles—or bicycles—which is about the only cycle I can relate to at this point in my 42-year coaching career. The fact remains that I run two meets a week for over eight weeks with runners who hate to train and complain about racing, yet somehow expect to run their best times and their brightest efforts at the biggest meets of the year.

If I get this done, I call it a motorcycle.”

There isn’t a high school or collegiate coach in the U.S. who doesn’t understand the concept of periodization. But there also isn’t a coach who can tell you, with certainty, that the approach they take guarantees the best athletes will peak for the most important competitions of the season.

This has nothing to do with their lack of knowledge or insight. They all have plenty of that. The reality is that high school cross country and track is just screwy. In high school, cross country meets may begin in August, just weeks after the season begins. Sometimes meets are twice a week. Coaches will tell you they are building for probably three main late-season competitions: conference, sectional, and state. The problem with that approach is that all three follow within a week of each other. Do we know for sure if what we are doing really does have our athletes ready for those meets?

A Two-Phrase Periodization Model: Foundation and Competition

Many coaches will assign phases to their periodization models, such as base phase, competition phase, peaking, tapering, restoration, and transition. I agree with those who simplify their approach to just two phases: General Preparation and Specific Preparation. I like to call this two-phase model, Foundation and Competition. Why? As a high school coach, I view “foundation” as what takes place in the summer after spring track, and “competition” as what most likely begins a week or so after school starts in late August.

What coaches often do—and it’s a good idea—is assign a priority to whatever competition they run beginning in late August. Some coaches describe meets as extended workouts where the goal is to “run through” the meet. They are building toward what they consider their top priority competitions. The top priority meets may be a conference, regional, or sectional for those who know that state qualification is out of the question. They know that it’s difficult to deliver strong performances one after another, and they may adjust training accordingly.

The fact that cross-country courses vary in terrain and distance can be both beneficial and problematic. Different courses can be used to explain time discrepancies, but when time and place are really the only variables for assessing an athlete’s performance, coaches can’t always tell if their training has truly accomplished what they anticipate it doing.

Some coaches like to assign 14 weeks as the point where the foundational phase switches to the competitive phase. I like 14 weeks just because it works for my cross-country season, which runs from early August to the first week in November. This is the reason I am intrigued by the use of Power Meters for training assessment. Instead of relying on a rigid timeline or times and distance covered during training sessions as the way to monitor preparation, I can make adjustments based on the specific data supplied by the power meters.

Power meters can give me the advantage of assessing what is going on with each of my athletes, which may not be exactly what my training timeline suggests it should be. The power meter lets me know how a hilly or curvy course influences a runner’s power output or running efficiency. The 3-D accelerometer gives me data on vertical and lateral movements—things that may change based on the nature of various courses. In other words, I have something to go on after a race other than just a time or place.

As Jim Vance notes in Run with Power, “Long term training history, fitness level at the start of training, injury history, weakness or physical limitations, motivation, confidence, and their factors all play a part in the training response. This is why a power meter is such an amazing tool: you’ll know how all these variables affect you, and know your training is addressing them.”

So, if I’m looking at summertime as the foundational period, I consider two things: first, my runners may be coming off a spring competitive track season, and second, some of these same runners will be entering summertime competition through a local track club. This can make any periodization plan more challenging. When do we do what we want to do?

Improving Foundational Abilities

Joe Friel presents what he refers to as the “training triad,” the three specific abilities an endurance athlete must develop early on: aerobic endurance, muscular force, and speed skill.

If you are training to improve aerobic endurance, your workouts focus on things like stroke volume and capillarization, with the goal of getting more oxygen to the working muscles. Many coaches refer to this as LSD—long, slow distance runs—or moderately paced shorter runs, which should help the coach assess changes in running efficiency.

Why look at efficiency? What if a runner’s times aren’t faster? A power meter is the way to let the runner know if his or her efficiency is improving. As Vance points out, “If you are maintaining the same pace but seeing you are using less power to maintain it, that’s a strong signal of more efficient movement and aerobic fitness gains.”

But if you run faster, do those speeds affect your efficiency? We know that efficiency tends to decrease exponentially as speed increases. As a result, a power meter lets you know if you are pushing that point of decrease further out. As Vance describes it, “The more efficient you are in your aerobic endurance intensities, the better prepared you are as a runner.”

What about Friel’s next two points on his training pyramid—muscular force and speed skill? Muscular force refers to the ability of muscles to contract and apply big forces to overcome gravity. Strengthening both the legs and the core—and by core, I mean everything from the upper leg to the shoulders—is a way to improve muscular force. We do things like kettlebell swings, goblet squats, and trap bar deadlifts over the summer.

We also do hill sprints and short, high-speed flying start sprints. I like 75 meters, but some coaches prefer much shorter distances. Here again, a power meter will show you if muscular force is improving. If your cadence hasn’t changed, but your power has increased, your force production has improved. The bottom line: higher speed and greater force means power is improving because power is force times speed.

The third part of the Friel triangle—moving at a high rate of speed—is what improves power. Jim Vance notes that speed is the “most precious resource a runner can have, and so it is arguably the most important skill you should train.” As distance runners get faster, their efficiency at slower speeds increases, but Vance make it clear that efficient runners don’t win races—the fastest runners do.

Developing Competitive Abilities

Once the foundational training has addressed aerobic endurance, muscular force, and speed skill, athletes can begin to develop muscular endurance, anaerobic endurance, and sprint power. Friel refers to these as “advanced abilities.”

Muscular endurance is a matter of big forces applied over a longer time. Coaches have historically addressed this by way of tempo and threshold runs. Even for these, power meters can help by letting a runner know if he or she is improving or maintaining efficiency at faster paces.

Anaerobic endurance combines aerobic endurance with speed skill. Near maximal effort—what describes our ASR workouts—will improve aerobic capacity, which is more generally referred to as V02 max. Coaches address this by having runners train at the V02 max level on their training tables. A power meter can assist here as well. A good indication of improvement is an increase in efficiency in the V02 max zone.

Sprint power is at the base of Friel’s performance pyramid. The speed in meters per second is a good assessment, but power meters will even indicate peak power output, which has an additional motivational benefit. Of course, sprint power is not what Arthur Lydiard would have incorporated into his training pyramid, and I can understand why coaches would view high speed as high risk. I haven’t experienced this risk aspect so I agree with Vance, who believes that the higher the max power you can produce, the higher the ceiling you have as an athlete.

But the question still remains: Can power zones tracked by power meters really help athletes run faster, or is this just a sophisticated data generator that simply confirms what coaches already know? I like what Vance suggests: “Certainly, they have the potential to create a breakthrough in training and performance. But the technology is so new that it is hard for us to say definitely that training by power meter is the best way to train.”

Power Meters Provide ‘Golden Feedback’

My bottom line is this: I like to be on the cutting edge of training approaches and new technologies, but as Mel Siff once reminded me, “If you’re always on the cutting edge, you’re holding the knife the wrong way.” In this regard, I need to work these accelerometers into my training on a more consistent basis before drawing more definitive conclusions. However, I also agree with Vance that the best coaches are the ones who innovate, and who devise training sessions and periodization plans that meet the individual needs, strengths, and weaknesses of the athlete on a regular, daily basis.

This is the reason I agree with his insights on the possible benefits of power meters. Athletes know the exact type of training they need to target, they know the specific pace they can execute, and they have a clear picture of how efficiently they can run at that pace. They also know how effective their training is in terms of improving that intensity and pace. Vance calls this the “golden feedback” of power meters.

I also don’t see the use of power meters as deviating from what coaches are currently doing. Most will follow a Jack Daniels formula, and that’s been a significant part of my approach to training since 1979. And most coaches would look at the realities of their situation the same way I do: end of track, summertime, and fall cross country for 14 weeks. Coaches are generally happy with the results when they apply a Daniels-type block approach—or some derivation of that approach—during the foundational and competitive phases of their sport. If they weren’t happy, they would make some changes.

The real value of power meters may be in the kinds of assessments that accelerometer technology can provide. For example, I can analyze the progress toward peaking for a couple of key races in late October and early November on something other than what I currently review: finish time and where my runners have placed overall. If a training objective or race time is slower than what I and my runners have anticipated, I have variables in addition to things like course complexity, weather, injury, or overall physical health to explain that.

Author’s note:

I have both RunScribe and Stryd.

RunScribe is heavy on locomotion information, and perhaps that’s why others have described it as more of a mobile running lab than a training tool. It provides a wide range of biomechanical data in addition to pace and cadence.

Stryd provides data on power, efficiency, stiffness, and speed. I can analyze cadence, vertical motion, and upper body movement. If runners can effectively change these to become more efficient, their running economy will improve.

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

Dijk, J. C. Van, and Ron Van Megen. The Secret of Running: Maximum Performance Gains through Effective Power Metering and Training Analysis. Aachen, Germany: Meyer & Meyer Sport, 2017. Print.

Friel, Joe. The Power Meter Handbook: A User’s Guide for Cyclists and Triathletes. Boulder, CO: VeloPress, 2012. Print.

Vance, Jim. Run with Power: The Complete Guide to Power Meters for Running. Boulder, CO: VeloPress, 2016. Print.

You can have your Laker girls, your hot dog races, your T-shirt cannons, and even your San Diego Chicken. For between-action entertainment, give me the Freeze.

In case you missed it, the Atlanta Braves recently started a between-innings promotion called Beat the Freeze, where a spectator is given an enormous head start and is then chased down by Nigel Talton, a.k.a. the Freeze. Nigel is a five-year veteran of the grounds crew and former collegiate sprinter with personal bests of 10.47 in the 100m dash and 21.66 in the 200m dash.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way. There is almost nothing more fascinating than a come-from-behind victory. Lose a 3-1 lead in a playoff series and you will hear about it for the rest of your life. Blow a 28-3 lead in the Super Bowl and your fans will cry. In track & field, nothing gets people on their feet faster than watching an athlete come from the depths of hell to overtake the competition. We love come-from-behind victories.

The reason this article is on a coaching blog instead of a newspaper is because track nerds like me cannot help but analyze a race, even if that race is between a weekend warrior and a grounds crew worker in a racing suit and ski goggles. I’m interested in the wonderfully brilliant come-from-behind aspect of the race, and the fact that two of the competitors have fallen flat on their faces while trying to beat the Freeze. Other than the inherent comedy in seeing a grown man fall on his face in front of thousands of people, my interest is in an overlooked aspect of sprinting: Coordination.

Coordination Is Key

Coordination is one of the three emphases of my early-season training. Most people, even most athletes, vastly overlook the importance of coordination in sprinting. Thankfully, The Freeze (or, more importantly, his competitors) has shown us the significance of coordination at the end of a race.

The “Beat the Freeze” race from foul pole to foul pole is around 160 meters, which means the alactic system becomes fully taxed and the body shifts into using the lactic system as its primary energy source. Since the distance is so short, the aerobic system barely comes into play, so people are not falling down at the end of a race because they are aerobically tired. They are falling down because their central nervous system (CNS) has eroded to the point of affecting their coordination.

Distance runners are significantly more aerobically tired halfway through the mile than a sprinter is at the very end of a 200m dash, yet you never see a miler falling down from aerobic exhaustion halfway through a mile. So many sprinters fall at the end of their races due to CNS fatigue that I wrote an entire blog post about it (“Acceleration, Coordination, Variation: Three Ingredients for Sprinting Success”) after last summer’s Olympics.

Re-acceleration Simply Isn’t Happening

Another reason for the falls you see against the Freeze, as well as many of the falls you see in less-experienced track athletes in early-season races, is that the competitors try to accelerate again when their top speed has clearly diminished. Once you are upright in a full sprint, acceleration is over. Any attempt to reaccelerate while running means you naturally lean forward to help pick up speed.

Once you are upright in a full sprint, acceleration is over. Share on X

The casual fan sees this all the time in football, basketball, baseball, soccer, and even video games. Going from a jog to a sprint is a good idea. But when you are starting at your current top speed, which has slowly eroded as your muscles fire and your coordination wanes, leaning forward becomes a very bad idea. You can see this very clearly in the following video, which is perhaps the most famous video of the Freeze.

Video 1: This may be the most famous video of the Freeze, a between-inning sensation at Atlanta Braves home games. The end movements of the Freeze’s racing competitor demonstrate why leaning forward at full sprint speed is a bad idea.

My advice to beat the Freeze? Work on your coordination, improve your top speed, and realize that once the Freeze has passed you, the race is over.

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

One of our favorite times of the year at my facility is when our college football sessions begin in May. What makes our job unique when it comes to this 12-week program is our near absolute control over what Mike Robertson and Patrick Ward call the athletes’ stress bucket. When these guys come to train, there’s no external stress. Aside from a girlfriend and a landscaping job, their lives are a piece of cake. And it shows every day during the warm-up. We simply cannot get them to shut up (a very simple way to determine their level of central fatigue or lack thereof).

What do I mean when I say we control their level of stress? To today’s physical preparation coaches, the figure below is nothing new, but it demonstrates how we truly are the organisms’ stress managers over the course of the summer. We structure our athletes’ training around the General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) by the day, by the week, and by the month. Seems simple enough, right? Apply a stimulus to the point of fatigue and watch the athlete recover and supercompensate leading to the next training session.

Wrong. In reality, each athlete has his own GAS, if you will. Different positions (lineman, receiver, etc.) require not only different stressors but also varying levels of intensity and volume. Our program fills the need for the application of unaccustomed stress. I believe this system is the ultimate guide for building today’s American football player.

The Summer Macrocycle

Before we dive into the daily training sessions, let’s look at a 10,000-foot view of the whole program for the three months we have these guys in-house. Let it be known, I in no way consider myself a “programming sensei,” I simply try to instill what others much smarter than I have found successful.

At first glance, you’re probably rolling your eyes with the assumption that there are too many moving pieces to this puzzle. It is much simpler than it appears. I like to refer to it as Modified Block Periodization where we’re linearly building athletic movement, meaning triphasic, concurrently raising all aspects of athleticism, all while respecting residual training effects (aerobic endurance, maximal strength, maximal speed, etc.). The big picture is nothing more than transitions from slow to fast, general to specific, and simple to complex using legend Al Miller’s suggested prescription of volume first, intensity second.

Mesocycle One

When the session begins in early May, some of the guys have been keeping up on their training since the end of spring ball while others have kept up with Call of Duty and Taco Bell. With that in mind, we adhere to the least common denominator and take everyone through two weeks of anatomical adaptation.

The benefits of this period are two-fold:

• It raises work capacity.
• It increases resiliency in the connective tissue while preparing the players for the more violent demands to come, i.e. sprinting.

Our speed work for the four weeks focuses on starts from a static position and is incredibly simple. Our go-to is two-point starts with the emphasis on front side arm mechanics and, most importantly, posture. We also emphasize posture, rhythm, and relaxation through extensive tempos during this block. In the weight room, we want the speed of the barbell to maintain relatively high speed. We are constantly cueing the guys to “rattle the plates,” as athletic movement starts from the ground up.

The first four weeks is a fan favorite (sarcasm) as we employ slow eccentrics to the main movement in the weight room, and we perform them in a cluster fashion. I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Cal Dietz and his work greatly influenced the resistance portion of our training session.

The goals of the eccentric phase, or block, are:

• To reach a level of hypertrophy necessary for the sport’s violent demands.
• To improve neuromuscular synchronization of the afferent/efferent pathways between the muscle spindles and central nervous system and desensitizing the Golgi tendon organ (GTO), which will then allow the organism to absorb high levels of force all while not triggering the over protective mother (GTO).

The only problem with eccentrics? They’re extremely stressful to the organism, which is why we use cluster sets during this block. Clusters are phenomenal for performing each rep at or near maximal velocity during the movement’s concentric contraction. This results in maximal power output, ultimately leading to greater improvements over time.

If you’re familiar with Coach Joe Kenn, you are without a doubt acquainted with his Tier System Strength Training template. I’ll explain why we implement it later in the article. For now, know our focus is on hypertrophy (“R” for repetition effort, or in our case, slow eccentrics and time-under-tension), then max effort, followed by a dynamic movement which could be a jump, throw, or use of accommodating resistance.

As for jumps during this block, we’ve had tremendous success with max effort, single response jumps. More specifically, static overcome by ballistic jumps (seated box jumps) with knee bends of at least 90 degrees to mimic the start of the acceleration phase.

Mesocycles Two and Three

June

As we progress further into the summer, the program becomes more demanding. The emphasis continues to center on the one biomotor ability that separates the terrible from the bad, the bad from the good, and the good from the great: speed. From a bioenergetic standpoint, we focus on alactic power rather than capacity. Why? It does not matter how many times a guy can run a 5-flat forty, he’s still slow. We find it more prudent to start building a Ferrari rather than a Ford Bronco.

As far as biodynamics are concerned, we begin to push the alactic envelope with longer accelerations and sprints. A staple in our program is flying 10’s (build 30, sprint 10) and medicine ball starts with great awareness on the height of their hips and their front side mechanics.
The fun part for my staff and me during this block is to witness the athletes realizing that as their speed increases, they’re able to generate more force with each ground contact. It’s even more rewarding to explain that the challenge they face as speed increases is that there’s less time available to apply force. A cue that’s worked time and time again for us is, “The only difference between flying and sprinting is ground contact.”

The only difference between flying and sprinting is ground contact. Share on X

Once they meet the sprinting requirements, they transition to the weight room with isometrics as well as true dynamic effort a la Westside Barbell. Isometrics seem to be all the rage again in the industry, so I’ll spare you the physiology lesson. Here are the benefits from isometrics that deserve mention:

• Motor unit recruitment which will increase the number of muscle fibers that will engage or fire.
• Rate coding will increase the rate at which the motor units fire, which then leads to a spike in muscular tension.
• Isometrics will divert maximal energy from the eccentric phase directly to the concentric phase with minimal (or no) loss of energy.

During this block, we’ve had great buy-in and greater success with max effort, double response jumps to mimic the acceleration phase by still employing a somewhat deep knee bend. A tried and true variation we love is double broad jumps–effective and efficient. That’s a win-win.

July and August

Moving into July, we progress toward sport specific or what I prefer to call sport transferable. Our tempos become more intensive, and we center sprints on absolute speed. Bioenergetically, by having shorter distances and rest times for the tempos while giving the athletes a more powerful engine and larger speed reserve, we’re giving them the best opportunity to not only survive during a game but to thrive. Football is an alactic-aerobic sport with an emphasis on capacity.

Here’s how we prepare our athletes on a typical Saturday afternoon:

• Average play is 5 seconds.
• Average rest between plays is 28-37 seconds.
• Average series is 5-6 plays.
• Average rest between series is 9-10 minutes.
• Average special teams play 7-8 seconds.

The game dictates what we do bioenergetically. While we’re not perfect, I’m confident we’re on the right track.

It doesn’t take an MIT graduate to understand we’re now placing a premium on “displaying your strength quickly” in the weight room, with the institution of the concentric or reactive phase, the short and multiple response jumps and plyometrics, and the priority Tier being dynamic.
A quick note on deloads: use them before your athletes need them. We back our guys down once a month. As Dr. Bryan Mann said, “Our body runs in three-week adaptation waves.” With that, we extract as much as we can from a given stimulus and then rejuvenate the organism. It’s not what you can do; it’s what you can recover from.

High/Low CNS Training

We use the high/low approach made famous by the late Charlie Francis. We are our athletes’ stress managers for the twelve weeks they’re with us, and this approach allows them to supercompensate constantly rather than seek homeostasis.

High CNS Training

After reviewing our weekly template, one could safely assume that our program revolves around sprinting. Why shouldn’t it? Speed kills. Allow me to quell your concerns regarding having only one day that addresses agility and jumps/plyometrics. We’re able to improve agility without venturing into that realm through linear acceleration and sprinting. How? Having your athletes sprint farther and faster in training allows them to reach higher speeds, thus achieving higher ground force. As we all know, high velocity=high force. Derek Hansen has touched on the multitude of benefits sprinting has when it comes to agility:

• Improved change of direction.
• Improved jumping ability (sprinting is a plyometric due to the flight phase).
• Ability to decelerate quicker.
• Less wear and tear (due to a decrease in agility/COD training).

When the organism is in a state of high velocity and high force, they reap the rewards of agility training without any of the risk. If we’re honest, we know agility and change of direction are hard on the organism. Knowing that, why venture into that realm of risk when it’s accomplished by sprinting full-speed?

Linear acceleration and sprints train agility, allowing us to reduce risky plyometrics. Share on X

Real world example: when Michael Vick was in his prime, he achieved maximal speeds at over 20 miles per hour (21.63 mph to be exact). When he was achieving at least 95% of his best times in max velocity speed training, submaximal velocities would be that much easier on him.
I believe that all team sport athletes need to tap into max velocity (absolute speed). Forget the benefits it has regarding jumping and change of direction, sprinting alone has a plethora of benefits, including:

• If it’s strength you seek, max velocity sprinting will drive up weights, because it is 5x ground reaction forces, 7x muscle-skeletal forces, and the organism is applying anywhere from 600 to 1,000lbs of force with each stride.
• It’s the safest expression of fight or flight. Derek Hansen said, “When a cheetah is chasing a springbok, does either animal pull a hamstring?”
• Sprinting enhances the organism’s speed reserve. Simply put, as we increase an athlete’s absolute speed, their submaximal velocity (or game speed) raises as well. Sprinting builds endurance; endurance does not build speed.
• Performing max velocity sprinting is a method of injury prevention. We’ve all seen a breakaway run in American football where the player blows his hamstring. This is because he did not do max velocity sprinting in training or practice, which led to a neurological misstep in his recruitment patterns.

Aside from the benefits of exposing our athletes to sprint work thrice during the work week, there are also substantial costs. The most glaring is the residual training effect of maximal speed. The benefits gained from training at or above 95% of maximal speed last a measly two days (depending on the athlete) as the residual training effects of this biomotor ability are five days ± three days.

A Typical CNS Day

On a typical high CNS day, we use my friend Mike Robertson’s R7 protocol:

• R1: Release
• R2: Reset
• Dynamic Warm-Up
• R3: Reactive
• R4: Readiness (Game Changers)
• R5: Resistance
• R6: Resiliency
• R7: Recovery

Release–For the release portion, we prescribe no more than three areas for the athletes to perform self-myofascial release. We stick to three because I believe if we prescribe more, we start to venture into the parasympathetic realm. As all of you know, we’re trying to shift to sympathetic dominance on a high CNS day.

Resets–I admit we’re not postural restoration wizards, nor are we great with functional movement screening when it comes to resets. However, my director of performance, Thomas Bowes, is a mobility guru on all things Supple Leopard. We know what we’re proficient at, and our guys feel good, mobile and stable, and that’s all that matters.

Dynamic Warm-Ups–After we’ve relieved some tension and moved the guys into more advantageous positions, we start our dynamic warm-up. Trust me, it’s nothing earth shattering. Again, I may not be the smartest guy in the room; I just apply what the best have done. We have great success with flowing yoga movement patterns as well as Buddy Morris’ high CNS warm-up.

Reactive–The optimal volume for a world-class sprinter is 600 meters of max velocity. Newsflash, I do not work with world-class sprinters, so we adjusted our sprinting volumes based on position to meet the demands of our athletes. Our reactive segment taps into 100-300 meters of sprint volume. Dan Pfaff says, “Acceleration is a skill.” We believe that any skill needs to be addressed daily. The lineman will do at least 60 meters every single day, big skill will perform at least 100 meters every single day, and skill will be exposed to at least 150 meters every single day.

The closer an athlete is to the football, the more he requires strength. Share on X

This is where our program may be unique: a linemen’s exposure to the reactive segment is rather brief, but his time during our resistance segment is much more extensive. This is because the closer an athlete is to the football, the more he requires strength. The relationship between strength and speed is inverse for our skill players. Their time during the reactive portion will be far greater than time spent in the weight room as their position demands more sprint volume with less of a premium on strength and weights.

Readiness–The bridge from sprint work to the weight room is what we call game changers, or readiness. Joe Kenn calls it halftime. Vernacular does not matter, substance does. This portion consists of:

• Posterior chain–hinge, knee flexion, or spinal erector
• Posterior shoulder–abduction, adduction; downward, upward rotation; protraction, retraction, or elevation, depression
• Abdominals–anti-extension, flexion, rotation
• Neck

We’ve found this is highly effective at the beginning of the weights segment to ensure the proper muscles are firing before the “meat” of the lift. For example, hinging before a deadlift or performing a knee flexion variation before squatting. From a more practical standpoint, as the workout nears the end, what athlete is going to be fully engaged if we place this portion at the end?

Resistance–We love Coach Kenn’s Tier System for resistance; this game is played head-to-toe, toe-to-head. I have yet to see a football player use only his upper body in the first half and his lower body in the second half. That alone provides enough rationale to address the total body each weight session. Our weights are extremely simple, efficient, and effective. We only use three exercises each workout–yes, only three. Volumes are adjusted based on position, but we make it known that we are concerned with speed, not weights. A typical session would look similar to this:

Resiliency–For us, resiliency means bringing the athletes through movements that are cyclical (running A’s, ankle jumps) because of the following:

• Typically all movements in the weight room are acyclical.
• Sport is cyclical. We want to bring them back to what they’ll face on the field.
• Cyclical movements re-establish proper intermuscular coordination between the agonist and antagonist. As Charlie Francis once said, “It is not how fast you can contract a muscle, it is how quickly you can relax.”

Recovery–Again, nothing ground breaking when it comes to recovery. We prescribe the guys elevate their feet and achieve a parasympathetic state, or “rest and digest” to help kick-start the recovery process. With early 20-year-olds, this is a popular time for Snapchat sharing and selfies–not a bad promotion for our facility. If it gets them to relax, I’ll take it.

Low CNS Training

On the low days, we prescribe tempos based on position. Larger athletes (lineman) won’t have the same volume that a cornerback performs. Our ranges will vary anywhere from 1000-2000 meters; at the beginning of the summer we focus more on extensive tempos and progress toward (slightly) more intensive and glycolytic tempos in July and August.

Along with the tempos, we prescribe upper body circuits that include medicine ball throws. This accomplishes a few things for the athletes:

• The nutrient rich blood, or the pump, will flush out any toxins and waste accumulated from the previous day’s high CNS session. And let’s be honest, it provides a psychological benefit as well. The guys feel good after a brief upper body workout.
• The low volume from the circuit will aid in recovery for the next day’s high CNS session.
• If you pay attention to Charlie’s system, you can have a high CNS component on a low CNS day as long as it’s brief. With that in mind, we moved our medicine ball throws (with indirect transfer to sprinting based on the specific variation) to our low days a la Buddy Morris.

Conclusion

By the end of the summer, these young men have developed bonds that carry over into the season as they mention one another on Twitter, post pics of their new friends’ success on Instagram, and are truly invested in each other’s careers. It’s one of the best parts of being in the private sector–the relationships.

My goal for this article is not to brag or boast, but to simply shed light on how we’ve found great success. And, speaking candidly, I hope this will encourage other coaches to be as open as I am so we may all benefit and continue to learn from one another. I am not naïve to the fact that, with this article, may come criticism. I have zero issue with this, as there is no perfect program. The program I presented to you is different from what we did in years past and will continue to change and evolve because training, by nature, is incomplete. In fact, as Buddy Morris once told me, “The best program is the one you’re not on!” With that in mind, let us professionals continue to pay it forward, grow, and ultimately help those we serve. This is truly what this industry is all about.

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