Blog

To Catch or not to Catch, that is the question!

Let’s get to it—I prefer the Clean High Pull to the Power Clean in the competitive, athletic population. I will provide some common sense and scientific support for my claim that might persuade some readers and, at the least, get folks to think a bit. Note that I’m not implying that Olympic-style weightlifters (who I refer to as weightlifters from here on out) are not athletic. However, for this article, “athletic population” will refer to non-competitive weightlifters: those who weight lift to help them in their sport. “Weightlifters” will refer to those athletes whose sport is only weightlifting.

The Power Clean and Clean High Pull in Athletics

The power clean has been around for at least my 35-year coaching tenure and will continue far past it. As a former short-time competitive weightlifter and mentee of the likes of John Garhammer, Bob Takano, Bob Ward, Harvey Newton, and Al Vermeil, not only do I love the lift but some of the best coaches taught me the lift and the science! This includes the 1980 Garhammer paper I still believe is the foundational work on the lifts, “Power production by Olympic weightlifters” in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (MSSE). More about this body of work later.

So, full disclosure, I love the lift and the physiological and biomechanical contributions it makes to the appropriate sports. That said, and as I have said many times before, I don’t want to do what works… I want to do what works best! Over the years, I have questioned several philosophies and methods (as we all should), and have proven to myself through educational recourse that just because we have done something for a while, it doesn’t confirm that it is the best option.

Thomas Paine said, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right…” No place exemplifies this like athletics; in particular, strength and conditioning. And it wasn’t until 10 years ago, after several re-reads of Garhammer’s research, that it hit me that the power clean might fall under the “this-is-what-we’ve-always-done” heading.

Problems with the Power Clean

It’s easy to adopt the power clean as THE lift to do for athletes, considering that jumping high and running fast are important for athletic success. There is no shortage of papers on Olympic lifts and their relationship to vertical jumping. These include Canavan, P.K., et. al. (1996), Garhammer, J., et. al. (1992), and Stone, M.H., et al. (1980), to name a very few. Vertical jumping and the power clean have similar biomechanical characteristics.

In addition, physiology and biomechanics can lead one to a safe hypothesis (there are very few focused studies) that, if an athlete can jump high, they most likely are fast in sprints shorter than 20 yards. Anecdotally, we’ve all heard the stories of those who power clean big weights and jump high as well. Jim Schmitz, in the article “Jumping and Weightlifting” for IronMind, talks of world-class weightlifters and their jumping feats:

“When Ken Patera (the first American to clean and press and clean and jerk 500 lb. (227 kg) was training with me in 1972, I told him that I had read that Paul Anderson (1956 Olympic Champion and considered the strongest man that ever lived) could do a standing long jump of 10’ (3 m). Ken said he was sure he could exceed that and told me to get a tape measure. I did and we marked his starting point. With a slight dip he jumped, and we measured 10’-6” (3.2 m). He said, “Let me try that again,” so he did and this time we measured 11’ (3.35 m)! Ken said he was sure he could go further, but the landing was hurting his knees since he weighed 335 lb. (152 kg) at the time.

…Another lifter who could jump was Tom Stock (1978, 1979, and 1980 U.S. champion super heavyweight), who could do a vertical jump and reach of 39.3” (1 m) at a bodyweight of 303 lb. (137.5 kg) and height of 6’-1” (1.85 m). Mark Henry (1992 and 1996 U.S. super heavyweight Olympian) could dunk a basketball at a bodyweight of around 374 lb. (170 kg) and a height of 6’-2” (1.87 m). Shane Hamman (U.S. super heavyweight record holder and 2000 and 2004 Olympian) was also reported to be able to dunk a basketball at a bodyweight of 352 lb. (160 kg) and at a height of 5’- 9” (1.75 m).”

I certainly understand all this and have for nearly 35 years, but here are a few of my problems with the power clean:

1. Nothing about the catch (turning the bar over and landing it on the shoulder) translates to the field, pool, or court.

The only non-athletic thing about the power clean IS the catch! This is biomechanically and physiologically useless for an athlete to help improve sports performance. Yet, special steps must be taken to teach the maneuver—increase flexibility of the wrist, include front squat into a program to help teach the “rack,” or separate rack flexibility exercises. Wrist inflexibility seems to be the biggest issue with the catch, and at times detracts from the very thing we are trying to achieve—power!

For example, both Athletes A and B pull the same load (140kgs) to the same height, proportional to their stature. Athlete A “racks” the bar in good form for a max 1RM. However, due to wrist issues, Athlete B cannot rack the load but was successful at a lighter load (120kgs) for no other reason than it was lighter; his 1RM is 120kgs. We all know this happens too often.

In this case, the power developed during the second pull was the same for both athletes, but Athlete B gets penalized not for power output, which we are trying to achieve, but for wrist inflexibility. Also, because of that, the power clean data—data indicating power—is now unreliable because Athlete B (and perhaps others) are being judged on wrist flexibility and not peak or average power.

2. Catch depths are different from athlete to athlete.

Split catches, catching the bar with feet spread even wider than a wide squat stance, and ¼-½-¾-full squat catch positions all significantly change the dynamics of the lift, specifically pulling height and squat strength contribution. Here again, any data gathered for team averages is not valid or reliable unless every athlete catches the bar at the same height in a similar manner.

3. The catch is more important than the lift.

In other words, as long as you catch it, it’s good! Whatever happens between the ground and the catch is an “oh well” proposition. It’s painful to watch bad technique on posted videos and there is no shortage of that. Some folks should plead the fifth because the clips are incriminating evidence of bad coaching. Legs straightening at liftoff (moment of separation—MOS); backs rounding coming out of a squat of any depth; hips rising before the shoulders; bars rolling from chest to shoulder upon contacting the body; bar trajectories that are too far from the body and, as a result, the lifter hops forward; elbows too close to the body; and on and on.

When I watch these videos, I can only assume that the catch is all that is asked for. I’d be the first to say—although I might be Boyleing (a Mike Boyle saying turned into a verb)—that you can literally correct some technical aspect of the power clean on every rep. It’ll never be perfect, especially with a population that does more than just lift. Still, the most important parts of the lift are everything except the catch, from the moment the bar separates from the platform to the second pull just above waist height. A fact that is not trivial: If an athlete’s MOS is not good, the remainder of the lift cannot be corrected and therefore is not good… Even if there is a catch, it should be red-lighted!!

Using the Power Clean Way Too Early in the Training

During Robert Newton’s presentation, “Latest in Strength and Conditioning – ACSS 2013 Keynote Address- Part 1 of 2,” he illustrates and discusses power training versus strength training. His question is the same as ours with “not strong” athletes—collegiately, this would be the inexperienced and weaker frosh group or those that have not acquired a strength standard—is “What do we do?” Do we do power training (e.g., Olympic lifts), or should we get them strong first?

Beginning with the power clean early in the training experience is ineffective in creating power, says @Coach_Alejo. Share on X

My hope is that I force you to watch the entirety of Newton’s fantastic presentation by not going into too much detail here. Nevertheless, his conclusions show that those that start power training first produce less power than those who strength train first and power train later in the same given time period. Then there’s the four weeks or more of teaching the phases of the lift (I’ve seen coaches spend too much time on the phases, most of which the athlete never adopts), where there is not enough load to get any sort of strength OR power adaptation during that time period. And, with all the time constraints collegiately and coaches complaining of how little time they have, beginning with the power clean early in the training experience is ineffective in creating power and a poor use of time.

As a side note, squat cleans are killing the emphasis on vertical explosion—pulling height, triple extension.

As a reminder here, I am talking about the athletic population, not the weightlifting community. However, the weightlifters are my comparison. Weightlifters perfectly match the speed, load, and effort so that the height they pull the bar is as high as they can pull it. It is a rare athlete that matches the speed, load, and effort.

What I’m seeing is athletes pulling the bar just high enough—when it appears to be a load that can be pulled higher—to get underneath the bar to squat it. And, in several cases, the weight being squatted looks to be pretty damn heavy in comparison to the pull as witnessed by rounded backs. The opposite is true for many weightlifters—it’s the pull that is the most difficult piece; rising out of the squat is easier if not the same difficulty. By the way, when a light weight is pulled to sub-max height, this means the athlete has purposely slowed the bar down. What other top-end powerful movement arises when velocity is purposely decreased?

So then, I ask, “Why are we performing the clean?” Clearly not for power, if it’s not max speed for the load and therefore not max height. If the answer is that squat strength is being targeted, then why not just have a great squat program and work on power by producing more speed and effort and catch the bar higher in a quarter-half squat position? Or taking a page from weightlifters, why not do a 2+2: two power cleans + two front squats?!

Looking at the Clean High Pull

“…most of the mechanical work of lifting the barbell (snatch) and his (athlete) center of mass by the time the bar has reached a position slightly above waist height. At this instance his body is fully extended and supported on the balls of the feet, the bar has reached its maximum velocity, and the force applied to the bar has decreased to almost zero.”
–John Garhammer, “Power production by Olympic weightlifters”

Although Garhammer is alluding to the snatch here, you can hypothesize that the power clean and most of its virtues come to an end after the bar reaches approximately waist height or so. My concern is that most coaches know how to coach the lift, or at least have gone to good sources to learn how to coach the lift, but do not know the kinesiology of the lift. I think the lift is taken for granted for no other reason than everyone does it.

There’s always talk of the physiology and movement related to the lift, its benefits to sport, and how it must therefore be good—and it is—but I don’t think it’s the best option given the intent. I know the clean high pull is the best option for producing power effectively, triple extension, and terrific technique, all of which contribute to common physical characteristics needed for success in sports.

Why the Clean High Pull?

Part of this answer has already been mentioned earlier as some of my issues with the power clean. Here are a few more reasons: The clean high pull is easier to teach and execute, is more versatile in relation to different speeds and pull heights, has less (if any) of a chance of cutting the pull short if coached correctly, is easier to assess individually or as a team, always matches load to effort, and can always match load to speed.

I know the clean high pull is the best option for producing power effectively…and great technique, says @Coach_Alejo. Share on X

1. Focus on Vertical Explosion

With the clean high pull, there is no wondering about when to get under the bar, producing vertical power, catching the bar but not being able to come out of the squat—thus missing the lift—or worrying about wrist inflexibility at heavier loads. You just pull as hard and as high as possible! And there are no worries about coming off the ground in proper position—if coached well, the weight will be submaximal to weights lifted prior. I have experienced my share of high pull maxes surpassing the clean deadlift maxes at some point, so that’s something to think about. At every weight, the athlete pulls as hard and as high as possible. So much so that it’s not unusual for stronger athletes to pull the warm-up loads nose-high or at some point begin with light snatches as a warmup.

2. Absolute Measure of a Green-Lighted Lift

I remember reading in a research paper that, in that particular study, during the competitive snatch the barbell was fixed overhead at two-thirds of the lifter’s body height. Higher or lower is not the issue, but I knew I couldn’t test the pull unless I had a stable testing protocol; a conclusive point. I also knew that I wanted a faster, higher pull because the athletic population needed that versus a slower/lower pull—I wanted an extended pull, not a jump shrug, which I think is a training mistake. I settled on sternum height at the xiphoid process. In a team setting, I wasn’t going to record every lift in slow motion to see that the lift was exactly at sternum height, if only as a practical matter. But for my purposes, it was reliable across the groups.

3. Teaching from the Bottom Up for an Earlier and Better Strength Base

I like the bottom up, or if pushed, another method that I and Craig Sowers, the former Director of Olympic Sports at NC State, termed “convergence.” My primary reason for teaching from the ground first is so that we can immediately work on strength. Very, very few exercises connect the posterior chain in unison better than the clean deadlift. Okay, the first day or two is limited to technical aspects, but every day after we add weight. Plus, if I have a strong belief in the MOS, the fundamental piece of any pull from the ground, wouldn’t it be the first thing I would work on?

It’s called intent: What am I doing and why. Convergence is working from the bottom up and from the top down within the same training phases. If a coach is compelled to work on the top portion of the lift first, so be it. Nevertheless, you can’t ignore the necessary strength needed from the floor if you want to produce optimal and peak power and speed. So, perform a solid clean deadlift routine one to two times per week and schedule some low-volume and low-intensity work on the second pull one to two times per week.

4. Less Complex Technique Than the Power Clean and, Thus, Easier to Learn/Teach

It’s all in the title. There are two teaching phases of the lift, and they’re easily taught and therefore easily learned. All for more power and speed! I will emphasize that the clean deadlift makes a huge contribution to learning the clean high pull for one reason: half of the clean high pull is technically sound and the athlete is adequately strong after 30+ weeks of repetitious technique and strength acquisition.

No one can deny that it takes weeks, if not months, for a power clean to look like a power clean and to use a load that allows for any benefit while learning. Haug, et al., 2015 (thanks Tim Suchomel) points out that it took a “minimal investment of 4 weeks to achieve increases in vertical power production.” Aren’t we always talking about how little time we have?! I promise you that on the first day and first rep of high pulling, a benefit is gained. Here again, density of training and time is the key—less time to teach for more power and speed.

5. Better Manipulation of Intensities for a Full Force-Velocity Effect

As Dr. Suchomel puts it (more about Tim and his research later), “force-velocity overload” can occur over a variety of successful pulling ranges. With a power clean, it’s a clean or it isn’t—there’s no work in between. Essentially, there are more benefits from the pull that cannot be achieved with a catch.

If you want to work on the strength end of the spectrum, work at heavier loads can be executed and remain at high speed with a slightly lower pull height. Higher velocities (higher pulling heights) can be performed at lighter loads without compromising technique. Unfortunately, the power clean is one of the few exercises where the load must be heavy enough to correctly execute it; a pull too high means the bar crashes the shoulders on the catch. In addition, assigning an arbitrary range of 70-80% for best power outputs is a mistake, especially when the pulls are not max effort or height.

With a power clean, it’s a clean or it isn’t—there’s no work in between. Essentially, there are more benefits from the pull that cannot be achieved with a catch.

Tracking bar speeds and power out of the clean high pull with the Power Lift laser, I found that top power outputs were occurring at 75-82.5% with speeds of 2.39m/s-1.59m/s, and I programmed each individual based on their max speed or power where applicable. Not coincidentally, the strongest athletes had the best pulling speed.

The First Step: The Clean Deadlift

First, the progression begins with the clean-style deadlift! I believe as strongly in this as I do the clean high pull. I propose that collegiate freshmen, transfers, or a beginner at any age for that matter, clean-style deadlift for at least 15 weeks of strength and technical emphasis in addition to one in-season cycle. I have found the percentage increase in strength, as well as the downside of staying too long in a strength phase, dictate the length of period I mentioned. You can count on the athlete setting a new deadlift 1RM during the season.

In the example of a freshman NCAA basketball player, it will be 16-21 weeks of strength and technical acquisition depending on what summer session they attend. This will happen in a 25-week period that has four weeks of no training due to breaks in the academic calendar. Next come 18 in-season weeks (low to very low volume, 60%-90%), not including post-season play. After two to four weeks of complete rest at the end of the season the new athlete will start the first day of clean high pulls.

Using NCAA soccer newcomers as an example, the heavy internal/external load of pre-season practice—magnified by athletes playing on summer teams and having little time for strength or conditioning sessions—is the perfect ground for very low volume technical work with a slow overload progression during the season. In this way, the technique should be solid by the start of the spring strength training cycle, and then it’s just a matter of choosing the right time and pace to overload up until the end of the school year. Returning for the second pre-season, again, it’s a great time for low-volume teaching and acquiring new power with the clean high pull. Coat-tailing onto Dr. Newton’s presentation, stronger athletes adapt to power training faster than those who start with power training, which supports beginning with strength work before the explosive movements.

The question could be, “If you are not performing a ballistic lift, what do you do to create power?” The easy science-based answer is, “We are creating power.” With inexperienced lifters, and experienced lifters that are inexperienced with pulling from the ground, gaining strength means improving power! The formula for power seems to be generally abused, and viewed as one-sided. The discussion is nearly always about creating speed to get power and the strength part of the equation is ignored. More often than not, strength is the limiting factor in creating power for no other reason than coaches like to get to the complex, exciting stuff before the athlete is strong enough to fully benefit from it.

Training for power and power training are two different things with the same outcome. In the weaker athlete, it’s summarized like this: The stronger you get, the higher you jump and the faster you run. Therefore, in that group, getting stronger is training for power. Full disclosure: During this base phase of deadlifting, the athletes performs a jump up on a box (24-36”) after each set for two repetitions. This teaches full vertical extension. The technique is simple to coach: the athlete should land on top of the box in the same position (hip, knee, and hip angle) as the takeoff.

The athlete must be technically efficient with the heaviest weight possible from the ground. To produce the fastest speeds at the heaviest loads while high pulling—or “cleaning”—the athlete must be able to optimize maximal strength AND technique during the first pull. I’m convinced that, to optimize the best weight to high pull, the deadlift must be close to topped out for two reasons:

1. You should never worry about whether you can get the weight off the ground correctly—never a concern for a weightlifter—let alone wonder if you can violently, vertically explode with the bar, catch, or no catch.
2. Reaching close to ceiling-level strength in the deadlift means that significant strength will not be a factor while learning the pull, when beginning at 40-50% of a 1RM clean deadlift.

Progression to the High Pull with the Clean

There are no phases here. My cues are visual (I demo) and audio (I describe what I want) and simple. Plus, they’ve already had the visual of seeing their teammates perform the clean high pull for months. As an example for our interns, I call them over and tell them that, while they’ve heard me describe the simple step in teaching the clean high pull, I want them to witness it firsthand. It goes like this:

Me: Deadlift the bar to just above the knee. When the bar gets here (pointing to the spot above the knee, as well as demonstrating the position), jump and pull the bar elbows high and bar close to the body.

Nine times out of 10 (no actual data for all you era-of-big-data folks), the athlete hits the first rep pretty damn well! That is to say, I don’t have much to fix at all. It’s not as if I have not personally dissected the lift from floor to catch and all positions in between—I have. I also believe that once you understand the entire lift from floor to finish (positions, transitions, cues), only then will the athlete you coach gain the most benefit.

That said, in all my years (with the exception of weightlifters), I have not seen the virtue in emphasizing positions for one to four weeks or more versus my description of the teaching method. Heresy? In the eyes of some. I just think those eyes are not saying “What works best.” It’s kind of like today’s training cards, which have morphed into PowerPoints with all the colors, grids, exercise, warmups, and technical lists! Some say it’s for the athletes’ benefit. I say the athletes could care less. The athletes just want to know what they should do; they don’t care what color or what artistic way somebody presents it. This seems mostly for the coach’s benefit.

Video 1: The conventional clean pull has a lower projection of the bar, but similar benefits. The clean high pull comes farther up than this, and other variations exist, such as using blocks or racks. Source: Brad Deweese.

There are some who say, “I don’t like the high pulls because my athletes drop down after the pull.” To those I reply, “They don’t drop down to catch the bar in a power clean?” Some also say, “I don’t like when they spread their feet out like a jumping jack after the pull.” Frankly, I don’t care if they moonwalk after the high pull. As long as they get to the position shown in the picture, which is the position we are training for, I’m good with it because we are getting the training intent and effect.

Research on Pulling Derivatives and Parting Wisdom

Paul Comfort and Tim Suchomel have been doing great research on pulling derivatives that don’t require a catch. Essentially, they have questioned some previously unquestioned Olympic lifting methods for athletes, such as the comparison of power cleans and clean high pulls and power output, forces during the catch (eccentric, concentric) versus forces on catching a high pull at the hip as the bar is descending, and comparing speed and power at a given percentage of a 1RM power clean and the metrics of the same load in a clean high pull.

The power clean has been a staple of training programs for athletes for more than 40 years. Valuable research has noted the athletic benefits of the power clean (vertical jumps, sprinting). However, the clean high pull appears to have greater versatility in that a wider range of force-velocity training (resulting in higher speeds and power outputs) can be performed without compromising technique.

Clearer testing parameters can also be implemented for the clean high pull, thereby making the data more reliable, and it is easier to teach and learn than the power clean by virtue of fewer steps and less complexity. If economy of time and effect is the intent, along with creating more power and speed at different intensities with a total body movement, the clean high pull just might be your movement!

Everybody seems to be process-driven, and sometimes I worry because I am not. Without a doubt, outcomes are and have always been my driver. I struggle with the concept of putting a process in place so the outcomes take care of themselves. Surely your starting point should be outcomes—how can you even begin to define a process without knowledge of what that process should produce?!

In my early years of S&C, outcomes were easy: a heavier squat, more muscle mass, less body fat, increased aerobic power output, etc. This changed dramatically after a conversation with Professor Yuri Verkhoshansky. I had been questioning the relevance of squat strength to rugby union, assuming it was important and that strength levels would directly impact my players’ abilities. He made two points that stick with me to this day and define how I have tried to work ever since:

1. “The squat strength of rugby players should be very strong, but this strength is a side effect of the training you perform and not the measured outcome.”
2. “The transfer of strength to a sport will depend on how strength is developed. With bodybuilding, this means there can be little transfer; developed through explosive methods there is much greater transfer.”

This made me realize I needed to consider two essential factors in my programming and planning. The first was a sport-specific outcome measure that measured the success of my program. The second was a realization that the way in which you develop physiological qualities is at least as important as the qualities you develop.

Before introducing any process of training, you need to determine your desired outcomes. Share on X

It made me realize that I had to find my outcomes before any process of training was introduced.

Finding an Outcome

Prof. Verkhoshansky’s most-reproduced illustration shows clearly labeled outcomes (Figure 1). The factor “W” is a sport-specific quality that relates directly to performance.

In a distance runner, this sport-specific outcome could be velocity at aerobic threshold. In a sprinter, it might be maximum velocity or time to achieve maximum velocity. “W” is always sport-specific, and it relates to the ability to improve sports performance.

In team sports, finding your “W” is a little more difficult. People might correctly state that all that matters in team sports is the result at the end of the match. Unfortunately, this may not truly reflect the success of a physical development program. Most would agree that budget and recruitment likely have a greater impact on results than any S&C program or system.

For a long time, I persevered with measures of jumping ability or explosive strength, and these had definite advantages in monitoring and predicting performance. However, I have since concluded that they only indicate readiness, and any change in performance probably results from recovery and not a change in actual playing ability.

Over the last 26 months I have gone further, spending a considerable amount of energy and time attempting to determine which on-field actions differentiate good teams from not-so-good teams. What aspects of the game are the champions able to carry out that the also-rans cannot? With knowledge of the on-field actions that have the biggest impact on game result, I should (with enough data) be able to correlate or regress this information alongside players’ physiological abilities and discover which (if any) physical abilities really impact the game of rugby.

I can already hear the purists screaming at me, “Correlation is not causation!” I know this, but it’s a step forward from measuring readiness and two steps on from squat strength. The proof of the pudding comes when development of these physiological abilities produces corresponding changes in measured on-field actions (or doesn’t!).

At this time, I have a small regression equation that defines critical actions. By this, I mean it examines and differentiates between the actions all teams can do and the actions that only the best teams do well. It explains a large variance in the points accumulated this year in the Premier League; this confirms to me that these critical actions can be thought of as my “W.”

With this as my marker, I can go a step farther and look at which physical abilities actually predict a player’s performance in these critical actions. The following tables show summaries of these results. The statistical outcomes used physical data and on-field activity from 50 international rugby players.

Physical Ability and On-Field Performance Markers

From the regression, we can determine that a model based on physiological ability explains around 40% of player variability in critical actions. In a game like rugby union, it’s not too surprising that 60% of this ability remains unexplained; the best players have the physical abilities, plus the technical and tactical awareness to make the best of these physiological qualities. In reality, 40% still gives us a large proportion to try and improve on.

Relative peak power output appears to be an important quality in rugby players. We can examine its relative contribution in comparison to other measure of physical ability (Figure 3).

Type of Training to Improve Critical Game Actions in Rugby Union

Current paradigms instill in us the importance of being specific in the work we do. So, normally we would look at a series of rules to define specific work and produce a selection of exercises and a plan of action based around them. There is an issue with this. I looked through some data regarding training times and where we apply most of our effort in the sport of rugby union. One calculation stood out for me: On average, we spent 84% of our available time performing sport-specific training and 16% of our time on general work.

This calculation assumes that all the work we did in the gym was classified as general (which would not be the case), so my statement would read: More than 84% of available time doing specific work, less than 16% doing general work. This says to me that I should use the small amount of time I have available performing general exercises that give me the most “bang for my buck.”

It probably explains why, over the years, instincts led me to always have squats, dead lifts, or cleans in my program. I am not a big prescriber of unilateral work—it’s not that I don’t think it offers something, it’s more that I feel that don’t cover as many bases. Besides, players spend 84% of their training time doing unilateral or offset activities like running, cutting, and jumping.

If I can’t put in place exercises that are specific to movement patterns when classified according to joint angle, amplitude of movement, muscle work regimes, etc., I still try to focus on producing an athlete engine that is specific to needs and requirements. Thinking about the engine required, it is important to realize that critical actions involve other players. We attempt to move them in some way, whether through tackles or ball carries, and we generally work against heavy objects that weigh between 80kg and 130kg.

With this in mind, I feel much of my time needs to focus on being good at moving objects within these boundaries as fast and explosively as possible. This includes explosive squat jumps, clean and jerk, clean grip power snatch, etc. Sometimes I feel you don’t even need to be that specific about the relative ability of each player. If you’re weak and can’t move those loads fast, it becomes a maximal strength session (and that’s what you need). If you’re very strong and can move the bars quickly, then you’re not wasting time chasing maximal strength—you’re improving peak power output!

The data clearly illustrates that having high levels of peak power production relative to body weight is an advantage for rugby union players. There are several adaptations that can result in improved power output. These include:¹

A. Motor unit synchronization
B. Frequency of stimuli from CNS
C. Inter/intra muscular coordination
D. Golgi tendon inhibition
E. Rainshaw cell influence morphological structure of muscle (% fiber type)

When looking at adaptation, I have always favored Verkhoshansky’s idea that morphological adaption is more meaningful; it allows greater latitude for long-term development and changes may possibly be maintained for longer during detraining phases.

This has always made me curious about changing distributions of fiber types. We know that it’s probably not possible to change the number or percentage of type 2a fibers. We can, though, hypertrophy type 2 fibers selectively or preferentially over type 1 fibers, and different exercise protocols can impact the relative hypertrophy that occurs.^3,4,5,7 An elite athlete has demonstrated this.²

The best explanation I have read for an improvement in athletic ability when we preferentially increase the size of type 2a fibers comes from Carmel Bosco’s manual concerning the Bosco jump test. If you have not read this and want to improve maximal power outputs in athletes, it’s a fantastic resource and bests or matches any current literature.

According to Bosco, consider two subjects pushing one cart, with one subject fast (10m/s) and the other slow (5m/s). When they begin to push the cart at a slow pace, both can apply force. At speeds above 5m/s, the slow subject can make no contribution—he is a passenger and the fast subject does all the work. If both perform a hypertrophy program they can push harder at slow speeds, but at higher speeds the extra weight of the slower passenger he must push negates the impact of the hypertrophy of the fast subject. Only if we enhance the muscle mass of the fast subject will force then improve at high and slow speeds.¹

How Do We Induce Preferential Hypertrophy of Type 2a Fibers?

We can use Zatsiorsky’s explanation of the recruitment and hypertrophy process to envision how we can put together training programs that give us the potential to produce specific hypertrophy of type 2 fibers while minimizing changes in type 1 fibers.⁶

A. Training adaptation will only occur if magnitude of stimulus is above the habitual level (progressive).
B. Only fatigued or exhausted fibers will receive stimulation to adapt. Muscles fibers recruited but not fatigued will not adapt.
C. The rate of fatigue is differential between fast and slow fibers.

If we examine Figure 4 and Rules A, B, and C, we can safely conclude that the most effective way to stimulate the largest, most powerful motor units will be through high-force movements. We need to do enough work to fatigue these motor units, but not enough to fatigue the smaller, more fatigue-resilient, slower motor units. This way we can induce selective hypertrophy and improve power or explosive strength.

There are, of course, two possible ways that we can produce high-force movements through mass or through acceleration. Acceleration is an excellent method to stimulate many neural adaptations associated with improved power output. It does not, however, place enough mechanical stress on the muscle to degrade protein structures (at least in low rep sets) and ensure fiber hypertrophy.

We need to stimulate and fatigue large fibers with heavy weights, and terminate work at a point before fatigue accumulates in smaller, slower fibers. This sounds suspiciously like velocity-based training. Is it possible the success we achieve with velocity-based training is due to selective fiber hypertrophy, rather than simply being due to “moving the bar quickly,” which is apparently sport-specific?

Changes in the type 2a fiber cross-sectional area have been demonstrated after velocity-based training based on a 20% fall in bar speed. There was no change seen with a 40% drop in bar speed.⁸ Unfortunately, the differences at the end of the study were not large enough to be significant.

Can Weightlifting Offer a Solution to Training for Peak Power and Selective Hypertrophy?

Weightlifting is an extremely effective method for developing power. It has been shown to be more effective than traditional resistance training methods, and results in greater performance improvements.^9,10,11 Weightlifters have also demonstrated preferential hypertrophy of type 2a fibers.¹²

Coaches frequently discuss the triple extension in Olympic weightlifting, and its specificity in terms of movement pattern to many sports actions such as jumping and sprinting. The triple extension is frequently quoted as the reason weightlifters can jump so high. The reason that weightlifters jump so well may be more related to the specific hypertrophy of type 2a fibers than to practicing the triple extension. The Kazakhstan lifting team believes that training should be planned with the specific hypertrophy of type 2a fibers as a desired and essential outcome.¹³

Weightlifting as a training methodology for sports tends to divide coaches. I don’t think weightlifting is essential, but it is a tool to use with the right individuals who have the motivation and ability. It’s also a tool with some unique qualities. I think it is important that coaches realize that placing some power cleans into their program does not make it a program based on weightlifting, no more than adding chins means your program is gymnastics-based. If you are not using a weightlifting program, then you will not see the benefits.

Where possible, I prefer to choose weightlifting exercises that are self-regulating and thus ensure the same benefits as VBT without the need for measures. By self-regulating, I mean that an athlete can only complete the lift while fatigue levels are low and speed of movement is high; this way, I am assured of fatiguing and promoting adaptation in type 2 fibers only.

If, for example, we compare clean and jerk to a clean pull with a prescribed weight of 85% max, you will not be able to clean and certainly not be able to jerk the bar once velocity begins to fall. Type 2 fibers are essential in the movement and, as such, when fatigued the set terminates whether you like it or not. On the other hand, a clean pull allows you to keep moving and “succeeding” at the lift even when velocity falls past “critical.” If you include lifts that are not self-regulating in your program and your desired outcome is preferential hypertrophy, it’s essential to monitor speed of movement. If you can’t do this, lifts need to be low in repetition range (less than three to four reps).

Lifts that I would personally class as self-regulating are:

1. All variants of classic lifts—snatch, clean, and clean and jerk
2. Power snatch, clean grip power snatch
3. Power clean and jerk or power jerk

Can Weightlifting Offer Any Other Advantages When It Comes to Peak Power Production and Rugby?

1. You will likely handle weights that are close to those in a game (bodyweight of other players). This places you in an area of the F/T curve that is specific to the sport. This is not the case with medicine ball work, ballistic exercises, or plyometrics. In terms of power requirements for critical actions in rugby union, it was interesting to note that RSI was only classed as an indicator when peak power output was excluded from the calculations. It had a high co-correlation with peak power and simply indicates players most likely to have the greatest relative peak power outputs, rather than being a defining factor. I am keen to look at a larger sample of elite payers, but currently these results downplay the need for plyometric training.
2. Clusters, which we know are a great way of developing power and explosive strength, are natural to the exercises. Not too many people will complete 3x clean and jerks without stopping to catch their breath!
3. We know that we have to be strong at different joint angles, and areas of accentuated force can change dramatically in team and combat sports where the positions that start and end critical actions will continually change. This can be covered in weightlifting. A complex is a fantastic opportunity to do this in one set: 3x clean and jerks can easily be prescribed as Rep 1) power clean from hips and power jerk; Rep 2) clean from knees and jerk; and Rep 3) clean from floor and jerk. This offers an instant solution to training varied joint angles and regions of accentuated force production.

We cover a lot of bases with a single exercise. For example, six sets of the above complex are 18 reps. In this, we cover at least the same ground as you would with RDL, front squats, and push press.

If you have a healthy athlete with no mobility issues, coaching lifts is easy. If you are having issues, you probably need to revisit your coaching technique rather than blame the difficulty on Olympic lifts.

Producing Your Desired Outcomes

Ensure your process produces the outcomes it should. Have measures in place that gauge your success and allow adjustments to your program to maintain progression and direction.

1. Define your outcome measure.
2. Investigate what physical abilities relate to the sport-specific outcome in your athlete population.
3. Determine how to train these abilities in a manner specific to your sport, what the cost of general fitness and training is to your base, and whether you compensate for any issues through exercise selections or training moralities that give you “bang for the buck.”
4. Is your program doing what is says on the tin? Does it improve peak power outputs of players relative to body mass?
5. Do improvements in athletes’ physical abilities produce improvements in critical activities? If not, change the way you train.
6. Do improvements in critical activities lead to better results? If not, revisit your critical activity analysis.

I hope that this has given insight into the way I view putting a training process together and how I measure a successful outcome. There are many ways to skin a cat and many are successful. I think it’s vital that we all learn to think through and justify our processes and decision-making, rather than relying on simply regurgitating what is spun on Twitter without any thought to the “what” and “why.”

Please feel free to contact me with any queries or questions. If you are keen to read more into selective hypertrophy, I suggest Dr. József Tihanyi’s paper, “Development of explosive strength according to muscle fiber types.”

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. Strength assessment with the Bosco’s Test, Carmelo Bosco. The Italian Society of Sport Science 1999.
2. Fiber type characteristics and myosin light chain expression in a world champion shot putter. Int J Sports Med. 2003 Apr;24(3):203-7.
3. Effects of strength, endurance and combined training on myosin heavy chain content and fiber-type distribution in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Aug;92(4-5):376-84. Epub 2004 Jul 6.
4. Muscle hypertrophy in bodybuilders. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1982;49(3):301-6. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1979 Jan 10;40(2):95-106.
5. The effect of weight-lifting exercise related to muscle fiber composition and muscle cross-sectional area in humans. 6. Science and Practice of Strength Training. Zatsiorsky. Human Kinetics 1995.
6. The Role of Resistance Exercise Intensity on Muscle Fiber Adaptations. Sports Med 2004(10) 663-679
7. Effects of velocity loss during resistance training on athletic performance, strength gains and muscle adaptations. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2016 Mar 31
8. Olympic weightlifting and plyometric training with children provides similar or greater performance improvements than traditional resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Jun;28(6):1483-96
9. J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Jun;28(6):1483-96. J Strength Cond Res. 2004 Feb;18(1):129-35.
10. Olympic weightlifting training causes different knee muscle-coactivation adaptations compared with traditional weight training. J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Aug;26(8):2192-201
11. Unique aspects of competitive weightlifting: performance, training and physiology. Sports Med. 2012 Sep 1;42(9):769-90
12. Scientific – Methodological Aspects of Training the Kazakhstan Select Team. Bud Charniga. Sportivny Press 2014

“There is no such thing as overtraining, just poor recovery.”
— Shane Sutton, Former Technical Director of GB & Team Sky Cycling

Whether professional athlete or weekend warrior, their desire is to perform their given sport or activity to their optimal levels. To achieve this level of realization in their chosen craft there is no alternative but to practice, practice, practice, and then do more hard work. Athletes undertake training loads so that they, through physical and psychological over-loads, improve their body’s ability to achieve a personal goal in a race, squatting performance in the gym, or pitching performance from the mound.

However, if they don’t accurately manage these levels of workloads, it can cause “overtraining” via too many high-intensity loads and/or too much poor athlete regeneration. Sports/training loads and “life” stressors such as poor quality of sleep, sport or business travel, poor nutrition choices, and weight loss can all affect the well-being of the athlete and push them into a downward spiral of acute fatigue, over-reaching, overtraining, subclinical tissue damage, and time lost to injury and illness.^1,2

Many competitors work hard and push their body’s limits while also wanting to continue exercising day in and day out, without much thought given to their need for recovery and/or regeneration modalities until they fall ill or become injured. Yet, although “regeneration” is an extremely important piece of the “athlete performance jigsaw puzzle” and a balanced training schedule, it is very often the forgotten element.^3,4,5

Solving the Overtraining Conundrum

In my previous role as a performance coach with professional teams, I oversaw the care and well-being of as many as 30+ athletes. The important lessons I learned are that we are not all the same and we do not respond in the same manner to workloads or recovery.

For instance, soccer games were on Saturdays (although sometimes there were mid-week games), and Sunday was generally a travel day back from a game or a recovery day. On a recovery day, players performed “active recovery” (light to moderate loads), followed by hydrotherapy, vibration plate stretches and movements, and the wearing of compression apparel to aid with blood flow. I educated athletes on the importance of a good night’s quality sleep, good nutritional choices, and the timing of that nutrient intake.

Depending on the time within the season and number of minutes played, some players may still not be fully recovered for intense workloads during team training sessions on a Tuesday or Wednesday. These players may need longer warm-up or preparation protocols before joining their teammates. You may also need to hold them out of team loads on that particular training day and have them work with the performance coach in a one-to-one or small group setting so you can more easily monitor and support them.

No two athletes will respond in the same manner to exercise workloads and recovery practices. Share on X

Therefore, there are three main components to this overtraining conundrum and your ability to steer the athlete/weekend warrior down the right path:

1. External loads (their physical load);
2. Internal loads (physiological or perceptual responses);⁶ and
3. Athlete regeneration practices. External loads include measures such as distance run, speed, weight lifted, and even internal loads that capture heart rate, rate of perceived exertion and regeneration practices, and use of modalities such as hydrotherapy, nutrition (timing), compression items, quality sleep, massage, and vibration plates, to name a few recovery routines.

Work Hard + Recover Well = Best Performance⁷

Exercise loads alone will not achieve those personal goals or results, as everyone from the elite to “middle-aged warrior” needs time to adapt to training stimuli and allow sufficient recovery from fatigue or depletion of the physiological and neurological systems involved. Unfortunately, there can be no “one size fits all” mentality, as no two athletes will respond in the same manner to the exercise workloads and recovery practices.

Thus, careful monitoring and tracking of training sessions, external and internal loads, and either observations by a qualified coach or careful self-evaluations (such as recording resting heart rate, noting the quality/quantity of sleep, body weight fluctuations or feelings of consistent tiredness) allows for an understanding of the athlete’s ability to cope with the demands set in the training program. Which regeneration processes are most effective will probably depend on individual preferences and is most likely a combination of practiced methods.^8,9

An Athlete Case Study with Major League Baseball

Now, while an acute injury is more easily identifiable, injuries related to overuse are a culmination of repeated loads leading to tissue maladaptation and they occur gradually over time.² These overuse injuries can appear in many varying forms and are associated with, among others: biomechanical variances due to insufficient loading patterns; extended muscle soreness/tenderness; depletion in muscle energy/health values (Chart 1); various biomarkers showing decreased hemoglobin; decreased serum iron; mineral deficiencies; varying mood swings; flu-like symptoms; swelling of lymph glands; and more.

I worked with this baseball player over the last four years and collected the data in the chart starting in 2013, and going through a seasonal downward depletion of muscle energy values. There were low scores during spring training in 2014. Then, in June 2014, the player suffered a left knee injury resulting in season-ending surgery. August was recovery/rehab from surgery, and the data shows further muscle energy depletion.

During the off-season, the player committed to a re-tooling of his physical conditioning and made improvements to his nutritional intake and timing. By 2015 spring physicals, both RF muscles had a score of 70, emphasizing the improvement in muscle fuel content and muscle health. Now the player had confirmation that all the demanding work was paying off, along with improved nutritional choices and a focus on regeneration protocols. He played in a career-high number of games during 2015 and 2016; all injury-free.

MuscleSound’s patented software and technology enabled the collection of this muscle health data, which gives an athlete the opportunity to take charge of their muscle health. Monitoring muscle health allows for the appreciation of the readiness of the athlete. As mentioned earlier, this readiness is always a balancing act between the physical responses to workload (games/training) and the regeneration from these efforts. MuscleSound technology, along with the collection and analytics for each competitor and team’s objective data, should enable informed assessments on each individual’s race readiness and health status.

Parting Thoughts on Recovery and Overtraining

In summary, overtraining and poor recovery are about managing exercise workloads and following regeneration strategies to help combat those major causes of fatigue. Always include nutritional intake and timing, quality sleep (as sleep disturbance after a game/race is common and can negatively impact recovery), and the utilization of various recovery modalities in your strategies.

Frequent MuscleSound analysis and other biomarkers help in the detection of athlete readiness, fatigue levels, inflammation, and potential muscle damage. Athletes and exercise enthusiasts that follow the “Work Hard + Recover Well = Best Performance” equation will benefit the most, with more optimal performances and better health.

References

1. Drew, M.K. & Finch, C.F. (2016). “The Relationship Between Training Loads and Injury, Illness and Soreness: A Systematic and Literature Review”. Sports Medicine. 46: 861-883.
2. Soligard, T. et al (2016). “How much is too much? (Part 1) International Olympic Committee Consensus Statement on Load In Sport and Risk of Injury.” British Journal Sports Medicine. 50: 1030-1041.
3. Bompa, T.O. (1983). “Theory and Methodology of Training”. Kendall / Hunt Publishing Company. Dubuque, Iowa.
4. Brown, R.L. (1983). “Overtraining in Athletes – A round table”. Physician and Sports Medicine. 11: 93- 110.
5. Kuipers, H. & Keizer, H.A. (1988). “Overtraining in Elite Athletes – Review and Directions for the Future.” Sports Medicine. 6:79-92
6. Gabbett, T.J. (2016). “The Training – Injury Prevention Paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder?” British Journal Sports Medicine. 50: 273-280.
7. Reaburn, P. & Jenkins, D. (1996). “Training for Speed & Endurance.” Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd. 9 Atchison Street, St. Leonards, NSW 1590 Australia.
8. Al Nawaiseh, A.M., Bishop, P.A., Pritchett, R.C., & Porter, S. (2007). “Enhancing Short-Term Recovery After High Intensity Anaerobic Exercise”. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 39: s307.
9. Jakeman, J.R., Byrne, C. & Eston, R.G. (2010). “Efficacy of Lower Limb Compression and Combined Treatment of Manual Massage and Lower Limb Compression on Symptoms of Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage in Woman.” Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 23: 1795-1802.

One of the most widely used performance-enhancing drugs in the world is 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine. The World Anti-Doping Association has never completely banned it, although the group restricted it at very high doses before 2004. These days, athletes can take as much of it as they like—and they do, with recent research indicating that roughly three-quarters of anti-doping urine samples contain measurable amounts of the drug.

It’s not just athletes that use and abuse this drug, however; many people are heavily addicted to it, and use it recreationally. Indeed, people will consume an estimated 8 billion portions of it today alone. You might even be consuming it now. So, what is this ubiquitous drug? It is, of course, caffeine.

That caffeine improves performance in humans is beyond doubt, and has been known for well over 100 years. This is true for endurance and team sports, as well as repeated efforts that take place in the gym or on the track. The only real performance activity where caffeine doesn’t have a clear beneficial effect is in one-off explosive activities, such as a sprint or maximum weight lift. However, given that caffeine can affect mood and reaction time, there is still a theoretical benefit. And in my experience, many sprinters do use caffeine as an ergogenic aid.

Given the widespread use of caffeine in sport, you might think that we know all there is to know about it. However, that isn’t the case at all. Researchers are constantly finding out new, interesting characteristics of the way caffeine can affect sports performance. Here are seven you might not know:

Caffeine appears to affect well-trained and recreational athletes differently.

This is a surprisingly understudied area, but some research suggests that caffeine affects trained and untrained athletes to different extents. A 1985 study, “Enhanced metabolic response to caffeine in exercise-trained human subjects”, looked at eight trained and eight untrained males given 4mg/kg of caffeine. While they didn’t measure the effects on physical performance, the researchers found that resting metabolic rate increased to a greater degree in the trained athletes than the novices, potentially because they could release a greater amount of adrenaline following caffeine intake.

Some research suggests that caffeine affects trained and untrained athletes to different extents. Share on X

“Benefits of caffeine ingestion on sprint performance in trained and untrained swimmers” build upon these results in 1991, with trained and untrained swimmers assessed over a 100-meter swim with and without caffeine. Only the trained subjects showed an improvement in the caffeine trial. This isn’t always the case, however; a more recent study on caffeine found no real difference between trained and untrained runners over 5 kilometers.

Caffeine affects us all differently.

Even though the caffeine advice for athletes is standardized at 3-9mg/kg, 60 minutes prior to exercise, there is a large range of variation between individuals when it comes to how much a set dose of caffeine improves our performance. A 2008 study, “Ergogenic Effects of Low Doses of Caffeine on Cycling Performance,” showed this very nicely, comparing the effects of low doses of caffeine (1, 2, and 3mg/kg) against a placebo on a 15-minute maximum cycle. The main findings were that caffeine doses of both 2mg/kg and 3mg/kg were ergogenic, improving performance on average 3.9% and 2.9% respectively compared to placebo, and that there was no ergogenic effect of 1mg/kg caffeine.

As the study was small, with only 13 subjects, the authors presented the individual data, which illustrated the large range of caffeine response between subjects. One subject saw a performance reduction at all caffeine doses compared to placebo, while nine others exhibited large variations, finding a performance decrement at some caffeine doses, and a performance enhancement at others. Only four subjects found caffeine ergogenic at all doses. This effect is now well-established, with “Effect of caffeine on sport-specific endurance performance: A systematic review,” a 2012 meta-analysis of 12 studies that utilized time trials concluding that the effects of caffeine were highly variable between studies and individuals.

The variation in the effects of caffeine on individuals is partially due to genetic factors.

A gene called CYP1A2 may potentially modify how much of a performance-enhancing effect we can get from caffeine. A research group first showed this in 2012, with cyclists given the AA “fast” version of this gene having greater improvement in 40-kilometer time trial performances following 6mg/kg of caffeine than AC and CC (“slow”) genotypes. This gene is responsible for 95% of caffeine metabolism within the body, so it may well determine how long caffeine sticks around for to exert its performance-enhancing effects.

It’s also possible that the metabolites of caffeine themselves are more performance-enhancing than caffeine, and so breaking down caffeine to these metabolites more rapidly would be beneficial. Studies presented last year at the ACSM Conference reported similar results, again indicating that fast metabolizing genotypes see a greater performance-enhancing effect. A second gene, ADORA2A, may also affect the size of ergogenic effects following caffeine intake.

The source of the caffeine can be important.

The source of your pre-training caffeine can also alter its performance-enhancing effects, which is partially due to the speed at which different caffeine sources are absorbed and reach the bloodstream. Typically, we expect caffeine levels in the blood to peak around 45 minutes to an hour after ingesting caffeine in liquid or tablet form (which is the reason for recommendations to consume caffeine around an hour before you need it to peak). However, when you take caffeine in the form of chewing gum, your body absorbs it much quicker.

The source of your pre-training caffeine can also alter its performance-enhancing effects. Share on X

A 2013 paper on “Caffeine Gum and Cycling Performance: A Timing Study,” found that chewing caffeine gum an hour before exercise had no performance-enhancing effects on a cycle time trial. However, consuming it immediately beforehand did confer its ergogenic effects. In other good news, coffee appears to be as effective as a caffeinated beverage or tablets, provided the caffeine dose is the same.

You might not even need to swallow it.

Having seen in the previous point that the method of caffeine consumption can matter, it may surprise you to hear that some evidence suggests you don’t even have to consume the caffeine for a positive effect to occur. Similar to carbohydrate mouth rinses, which can improve endurance performance, swilling a caffeinated solution around your mouth can improve performance compared to placebo. Other studies have replicated this, although it is not always found. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that simply washing caffeine around your mouth is enough to improve endurance performance.

Caffeine may help recovery from exercise, too.

While the main use of caffeine is to enhance performance during a training session, there is some evidence to suggest that it might also enhance recovery. A 2008 study compared the use of just a post-exercise carbohydrate drink to a combined carbohydrate and caffeine (supplying 8mg/kg of caffeine) drink following an exhaustive cycle test. The subjects that consumed caffeine alongside the carbohydrate after exercise had greater rates of muscle glycogen resynthesis in the four hours following training, illustrating that caffeine may speed up recovery. Due to caffeine’s extended half-life of three to six hours, provided the training session is short (i.e., less than two hours), caffeine consumed 60 minutes pre-training will also have this positive effect on exercise recovery.

If you believe caffeine improves performance, there’s a greater chance it will.

Finally, your beliefs as to the performance-enhancing effects of caffeine alter how much it improves your performance. A 2006 paper, “Placebo effects of caffeine on cycling performance,” put cyclists through three different 10-km cycle time trials. For each time trial, they were told they were consuming different caffeine doses: none, 4.5mg/kg, or 9mg/kg. When told they weren’t consuming caffeine, the cyclists performance dropped by 1.4%. However, when told they had consumed caffeine, their performances increased by 1.3% and 3.1% in the 4.5mg/kg and 9mg/kg trials respectively.

The interesting part of this experiment is that none of the subjects had consumed caffeine at all—they were just told they had! It wasn’t caffeine that improved performance, it was being told they had taken caffeine that improved performance. This indicates that the belief in caffeine is an important part of its performance-enhancing effects.

The downside is that, if you believe caffeine improves performance but you think you haven’t consumed it, then your performance might suffer. Last year’s “Placebo in sport nutrition: A proof-of-principle study involving caffeine supplementation,” backed up these findings. It found that when comparing caffeine to placebo, those correctly identifying they hadn’t taken caffeine saw a loss of performance compared to a control trial, while those who thought they had taken caffeine saw an improvement in performance compared to a control trial—even if they hadn’t.

As you can see, the relationship between athletes and caffeine can be a positive one, but is subject to many modifying factors. As research in this area expands, we will be able to create much more personalized caffeine use guidelines. In turn, this will hopefully improve the performance of athletes.

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

When it comes to validating one’s self as an athlete, jumping is the first request on many training priority lists. Think of the famous sporting feats that are etched in our memory:

• Vince Carter leaping over Frederic Weis in the 2000 Olympics for the thundering slam dunk finish.
• The famous front-flip touchdown by Jerome Simpson of the Bengals.
• Bo Jackson leaping and running up the outfield wall following a running catch against Baltimore.

Sure, it’s embarrassing to get beat down the court or on the open break by an opposing player, but it’s far more humiliating to get dunked on (Weis lost the opportunity to play in the NBA due to his notoriety as the 7 foot guy who got jumped over), your shot blocked, or a spike rammed down your nose. Nobody is “posterized” by simply getting beat by an offensive player downfield. It is as if Stan Lee decided that the superhero version of the modern athlete was one with unbelievable jumping ability. The marketing engine, as it exists, likes to cater towards those athletes with these superhero aspirations. Who wouldn’t want a program that will turn them into the Batman of athletes for only $67?

Speed wins games, but jumping seems to be the envy of those who want to impress. It also doesn’t hurt the cause of becoming a better athlete. Real vertical jump training with the goal of advanced performance can be muddy waters, particularly through the efforts of those who have seized up much of the available information with marketing based information, directed towards novice athletes.

The goal of this article is to provide some philosophies and guidelines for the rest of us, those who are interested in the long-term process of sport mastery, and the journey of taking athletes to their best possible performance. These points are often left up to debate in the various training forums and roundtables of the world on the subject of increasing vertical leap ability so I am sharing my thoughts on them, all in one place, right here. I derived these from my time as an athlete, a track coach, a strength coach, as well as in my work with online clientele of various backgrounds.

Let’s start with a common point that most coaches already know, but one that may need a bit extra clarification in regards to jumping.

Exercises are in your program for a season, and sometimes a lifetime, but are only a means to an end.

I hear it all the time:

“You need to be doing X exercise if you want to jump higher.”

In athletic performance training and particularly vertical jump training, there is a recurring theme of “exercises”. Often athletes swear by this or that exercise, or exercise sequence, in regards to their athletic ability. Track athletes often carry with them an exercise that “they need to be doing” because there was “this one time” in their athletic career when they were performing that particular exercise and competition went well for them.

The truth is that there is a window of time each exercise will be effective in providing a significant short-term boost to vertical jumping ability, largely due to the skill improvement that the particular exercise delivered to the athlete’s jump technique. Once the skill improvement is transferred, there isn’t as great of a need to keep introducing the exercise in such a volume during the rest of the athlete’s career.

For example, as far as speed training is concerned, I have found that the barbell hip thrust is a fantastic way to get an athlete’s glutes up to speed in terms of activation and pelvic posture, but once I have brought an athlete to the appropriate activation level, bringing their max from 500lbs to 550lbs by continual focus on that exercise is probably a waste of time. With the new level of activation gained from hip thrusts, many of the other exercises that they do will help to maintain that improved strength and size of their posterior. It is a similar story with jumping.

The following are some examples of traditional jump exercises, and the corresponding skill of the jump that they can bring up to speed.

• Jumping rope provides a rapid boost in ankle function and stiffness for an athlete who tends to live on their heels.
• Squatting provides a rapid boost in athletes who need to learn to apply forces for longer periods of time to the ground in two leg jumping. (Vertical jump height off of two legs is a stark contrast to one leg as the amount of time that an athlete can input force into the ground directly correlates with the final vertical velocity of the jump).
• Plyometrics provides a rapid boost in performance in athletes who lack stretch shortening cycle efficiency and general foot strength.
• Pistol squats provide a rapid boost in leg stability and linking of the feet and hips.
• Olympic lifting gives an immediate infusion of posture and coordination through triple extension of the hips, knees and ankles.
• And so on and so forth.

These exercises will provide a rapid boost for a period of time, as they but in order to attain long-term progress, many of them will need to take a back seat to what is truly important. Clearly they should be kept in the program in some form, or rotated to prevent a lack of accommodation. Also, we know that a rotation of exercises that are very close to velocity and mechanics to the primary exercise are vital in long-term athletic improvement for motor learning and accommodation reasons, so strategic use of exercises will also rotate based on these needs.

Although many exercises must be kept in a program for the purpose of maintenance in particular qualities, the primary areas that truly need to be addressed for continual jump improvement during all periods of specific and competitive preparation in order of importance are:

• Specific work capacity in the type of jumping that one wishes to improve (the ability to jump maximally and in enough volume to deliver repeated, specific training effects).
• Speed. Specifically, acceleration.
• Rate of force development in the specific motor pathway an athlete utilizes to jump. Quick jumpers prefer specific plyometric based movements, while power jumpers ofen prefer specific barbell oriented movements such as squats or barbell step ups).

Understand the squat to bodyweight debate. Lift for explosiveness and complimentary benefits, not to hit a magic number.

“To die as a warrior means to have crossed swords and either won or lost, with no consideration for winning or losing.” — Miyamoto Musashi

What in the world does the above quote have to do with lifting for athletic performance?

Well, aside from giving me an excuse to put a samurai reference in this article, it also represents a nice ideology for the purpose of strength training as far as increased athleticism is concerned.

Just like the warrior who enters battle for the ritual of combat, and not so much the determined outcome as a means of validation, the athlete who enters strength training does so for the transfer of skills to the field of play, and not the outcome goal of lifting itself.

Why would anyone validate their ability as an athlete based on a means used to train, and not the actual competition itself? This happens regularly with strength. Although barbells are a great and often indispensable training means, when the urge to utilize the barbell as a form of athletic (or personal) validation creeps in, the whole training system can be thrown out of balance.

This mentality can also cut athletes career progressions short as athletes thrown through the barbell grinder in high school or college can often scrape out nice performances for that particular time period, but struggle and regress in the next phase of their athletic journey.

Another thorn of this mentality, particularly with high school athletes, is that those high school athletes who responded well to year-round heavy lifting in high school will mentally rely on this type of work as a means to success in their college years. This often spurs a negative cycle of regression on their part, which the solution to is often, “more heavy lifting!”.

As far as improving athleticism, lifting weights serves the purposes of:

• Improved posture
• Body awareness
• Coordination
• Joint stability
• Potentiation of proximal speed and power training sessions
• Positive hormonal changes (testosterone and growth hormone)
• Increased cross-sectional area of relevant muscle fiber pool (when done correctly, and there is a limit to this based on an athlete’s genetics)
• Increased strength at key joint angles and torques

Looking at these benefits it is easy to see that strength training is an important tool to making the rest of training better; any of the benefits are those that can easily be “maxed out”, early in their use or an athlete’s career. For example, an athlete will reap immediate body awareness, explosive coordination and postural benefit from a well-designed lifting program, but those benefits will only take them so far. There isn’t an infinite improvement rate as far as posture and coordination are concerned.

As far as vertical jumping goes, athletes with a great squat to bodyweight ratio will jump higher than their weaker counterparts, all other factors being the same. There is an important chicken-or-the-egg consideration to make with these athletes, however. Athletes who are naturally strong and explosive will experience a rapid train of improvement in barbell exercises, along with lots of psychological momentum. Athletes on the weaker end will find rapid improvements via lifting, especially in the motor benefit realm, but their results will taper off far sooner than their stronger counterparts. Unfortunately, rather than playing to their more natural plyometric and elastic strengths, these weaker athletes will sometimes put their heads down and strive for a particular lift number that hamstrings (sometimes literally!) their long term athletic progress.

“I was pretty average until I decided to work hard to hit that 2.5x bodyweight squat, after which I won the Olympics,” said no athlete ever.

Athletes who tend to improve their vertical jump the most by focusing primarily on the lifting portion of their program are, more often than not, athletes with a lot of fast twitch muscle mass, who generally jump in a style resembling their lifting. Their lifting makes their jumping better (to a point), and their jumping makes their lifting better. Realize that many athletes are not built like this.

Lift maxes are a trick of sorts. Maximal strength often indicates the functional motor pool available in an associated movement, but intensely pursuing maximal strength doesn’t transfer well to speed based activities. The goal in lifting to bring maxes up that help athleticism is to do so in a way that doesn’t look like you are actually training for it; lots of powerful work in the 60-80% range, coupled with plenty of explosive plyometric, jump and sprint work. Believe it or not, many explosive wired athletes will find that their lift maxes will actually go up by following this methodology over a powerlifting style of training. Bottom line, speed builds useable strength more than strength builds speed.

Use Olympic lifts for skill development and speed, not to end up on AllThingsGym.

As long as we are on the topic of lifting, find me an NCAA strength program that doesn’t use any Olympic lifts. The Olympic lifts can be very effective in the right context for building vertical jump related qualities, but they can also be lousy when they are worked in the wrong direction with the wrong cues, especially in athletes seeking to break through to the higher end of their genetic abilities.

Let’s make this as simple as possible and talk about the benefits of an Olympic lift in regards to vertical jumping skill. Regarding vertical improvement, any lift is only as good as it can improve the skill of a jump in an explosive manner. Here are the positives of Olympic lifting:

• Teaching coordination in triple extension.
• Providing a new set of motor instructions in regards to explosive concentric triple extension.
• Teaching basic force absorption qualities in the catch.
• Teaching advanced force absorption qualities, in transfer to two leg jumping, in the full catch.
• Teaching posture in conjunction with explosive efforts.

An Olympic lift is a “jump”, but with one caveat: there is a bar that manipulates the athletes’ center of gravity (just like any barbell lift). Although a proper Olympic lift is done where the bar never passes more than a couple of inches away from the body, this is often done in-correctly more times than it is done correctly.

Getting into the 1RM race as far as cleans are concerned is also a battle that many athletes will eventually lose when it comes to building a better vertical jump. In order to bring a clean or snatch to its own highest level far past the initial complimentary benefits, the body must adapt itself to a different set of neural instructions that jumping requires, especially in regards to the feet (which we’ll get to in the next point).
Bryan Mann, in his great book, Velocity Based Training, recommends keeping a bar speed of at 1.2-1.4 m/s on cleans with perfect technique, the bar never straying far from the body. Doing heavy and relatively slow cleans with a bad bar path is one of the best ways to keep an athlete below the rest of the crowd, as this type of work has zero, or even a negative transfer to vertical jump height.

Teach the feet.

In nearly every athlete I train who has a lousy standing vertical jump, the primary deficiency isn’t one of power, but rather one of foot function and force transfer through the torso. I have female high jumpers clearing 5’10 who regularly vertical jump under 20” because of ankle function. For high jump, this isn’t hurting them (and I am not on a mission to improve these girls standing jumps), it just reflects itself in the way that they jump off of two feet, as their primary reaction in directing force though the ankle is based around negative shin angles to perpendicular shins, where standing jumps rely more on positive shin angles.

Many athletes who have a well-rounded athletic background have pretty good foot function in regards to jumping. It is often over-specialization, coupled with the over-use of standard barbell training performed on a regular basis that can cause dysfunction in this area. Wearing shoes all the time also tends to put a damper on fast, reactive feet, as the plate of the shoe causes foot neurons that usually fire individually, to all wire together in one brute reaction to the ground.

In athletic performance, the faster an athlete can direct pressure to the big toe, and the more powerful the extension of the plantar flexion, the higher an athlete will jump. When an athlete lowers their frequency of re-enforcing this quality, and starts to spend two or three days a week performing exercises where they focus on directing force away from the big toe, or delaying it until the very last second, such as the way that cleans and snatches are often taught, this can wreak havoc on vertical athletic qualities. I see this all the time when we test the jumps of strong collegiate athletes who have been on a regular lifting program through high school. The ones who display the best vertical jump mechanics in the lower leg are often those who haven’t lifted much in their past, and played a jumping sport in their earlier school years.

So what to do?

The solution here is to make sure that athletes are being cued correctly in lifting activities (not lifting through the heel, and keep plenty of lifts that allow for some extension through the toe at the top of the lift), and perform lifts in a low enough volume as to not interfere with the correct lower leg action. It is also good practice to mix and superset barbell work with exercises and drills that do encourage the correct foot function, such as low-level plyometrics, assisted jumps, and lower leg jump drills. If I have the space, I’ll always superset Olympic lifting sets with a few vertical throws, focusing on complete ankle extension, or low-amplitude speed bounding, depending on the vertical outcome goal.

I’ll also say that many of these exercise prescriptions may be a bit primitive in light of Chris Korfist’s ankle rocker drills, while are one of the best new areas of jump training I have read in a long time, and they can restore foot and ankle function in a hurry.

Know how to do a depth jump correctly and use energy efficiently.

If you look up “depth jump” on YouTube, be prepared for a cluster $%& of the highest magnitude. Depth jumps are rarely taught the way that they should be. I was fortunate to come across a vertical jump program (The Science of Jumping) when I was in high school that revolved almost entirely off of the correct performance of the depth jump exercise and its variations. Here are some common faults in typical YouTube videos on the topic:

• Improper posture during the drop and land phase (often looking down).
• Improper or minimal use of the arms (very small or non-existent arm swing).
• No emphasis on landing softness whatsoever. No emphasis on where the foot pressure should be (the balls of the feet, and possible initial mid-foot pressure for single leg jumpers).
• No emphasis on landing stiffness. Many athletes go into far too much knee flexion upon landing. Since the goal of depth jumps is rate of force development under increased load, knee flexion should be less to allow less ground reaction time.
• No emphasis on the need for maximal upwards explosion on each repetition (this is the number one offense). Depth jumps are maximal efforts. In order to maximize upwards explosion, an outcome goal, such as an overhead target (for force) or a collapsible hurdle (for rate of force development) should be implemented. Athletes should seek to improve these outcomes throughout training sessions.

Let me talk about one aspect of depth jumping, and plyometrics in general, that coaches and athletes need to know: smoothness.

Good jumpers… really good jumpers, have one main thing in common. They make their jumps look incredibly smooth and easy. Good jumpers are quiet. This is something that is easy to say, but rarely put into practice. Check out this force/time graph of a novice jumper vs. an accomplished jumper to see what I’m talking about from a force perspective.

What is the best way to improve one’s ability to produce force efficiently? A plyometric progression, starting with correctly coached drop jumps. Drop jumps (dropping from a box of appropriate height with an emphasis on landing mechanics) is a great way to teach force absorption. Once an athlete knows how to do this right, then to make lasting changes, a somewhat high volume of work is needed to wire it in. This is where submaximal plyometrics, coached with the same cues as the drop jump can help to gear an athlete’s nervous system and muscle-tendon structure towards transferring force in a more efficient manner.

Understand the difference between body types in training.

Not every athlete is destined to squat twice their bodyweight. Not every athlete is born to master a depth jump from a 1 meter platform. Athletes need to eliminate weaknesses that are liabilities to their jump performance, but they shouldn’t pursue their weaknesses past this point to achieve their highest vertical potential.

Ultimately, athletes are built, and subsequently, developed for a particular jumping style. Through their adolescent development, their neurons that fired together to form a particular platform of movement, wired together to make that movement more powerful in their maturity.

Imagine taking a competitive swimmer at age 22, who had no real land based sport background and expecting them to be able to perform a technically perfect triple jump within a few months, or even years! Imagine taking a competitive triple jumper at age 22 and expecting them to perform a perfect butterfly stroke! Once the way our bodies tend to move are “wired in” those sequences generally represent the most powerful way that a person can move and apply force, and future specialization in the body’s current weakness is an impossibility.

When an athlete learns to produce force in a particular manner through adolescence (this is usually done in accordance with the athlete’s individual strengths) these patterns are wired in, and it becomes impossible to wire over it with another pattern that eclipses the old pattern in terms of power and efficiency. Athletes sprint and jump from just a few years old, so these patterns are very hard wired. Granted, there are technical refinements that can and should be made to anyone (otherwise, we might as well give up coaching!), but in general, wired movement patterns are hard to break.

What I am really talking about here is that some athletes will utilize little knee bend and elasticity in jumping (they often make good high jumpers and single leg jumpers), while others use considerable knee bend (they tend to make good 60m dash athletes and football players). You can’t take either of these athletes and expect them to jump like the other. In the same vein, you can’t take one athlete and expect that training like the other is going to bring them to their highest potential.

Don’t stop playing team sports and realize it’s power as a maximal jump incubator.

Within team sport play comes a wealth of explosive movement patterns. The highest levels of explosive power as exhibited in jumping are the product of other more basic movement patterns found in sport, such as the acceleration found in the jump approach, or the rapid decelerations that the lower limbs encounter during the absorption phase of the jump.

Team sport play also helps to maintain elasticity and build stronger lower legs, ankles, and feet. They deliver some of the strength that can be built only through repetition. The constant, rapid fire cuts, accelerations, quick hops and outcome based sport movements (such as jumping for a blocked shot) offer a unique training stimulus that can’t quite be attained via traditional training methods.

Remember, training in many cases is putting together very close variations of the primary movement you are trying to improve. In the scope of jumping, an athlete is getting plenty of jumps, no two of which are exactly the same which builds a bigger “bank” of motor patterns that the body can use to create a stronger movement. The variety also prevents injury, and perhaps of the greatest benefit, utilizes the important principles of fun and competition. Anytime you can make hard, effective work fun, it is generally a win-win.

Although experienced jump athletes who are specializing in something aside from basketball, volleyball or football need a base of team sport play in their younger years, they clearly shouldn’t be playing games constantly in their time of specialized performance. Despite all this, they should never completely lose touch with their team sport roots. Matt Hemingway re-vitalized his high jump career through his love of basketball in his later years of competition. A few 30 to 45 minute sessions of off-season, controlled team sport play for a few sessions a week goes a long, long way in keeping the movement bank of track and field jumpers full for their long competitive seasons. (Side note: hurdling is a great way to keep the movement bank full with slightly less risk of a rolled ankle)

Conclusion

My vertical jump journey, and the way that I coach athletes has been heavily influenced in some way, shape or form by the above principles. Most of them took around a decade for me to truly understand, but now that I do, I am a better coach and mentor for it. Each of these points on their own can be helpful. Together, they can make a great difference in producing the next great aerial touchdown or center-clearing dunk, or at least, the aspiring junior athlete who finally impresses his friends by shoving the round-ball through the rim.

“By changing the way you do routine things, you allow a new person to grow inside you.” — Paulo Coelho

For more information on the vertical jump see Joel Smith’s book “Vertical Foundations”, now available in both print and eBook.

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

 

This tweet from Mladen Jovanovic, football physiologist at ASPIRE Academy for Sports Excellence, and the responses it generated illustrate a subject many who work in competitive sports environments are pondering.

From my knowledge of institutes in the UK, any university can designate its student gym as a “high-performance” center, as if such a grandiose title gives the impression that anyone other than the BUCS (British Universities and College Sport) competing football team trains there. There are of course some genuine high-performance facilities attached to universities with elite athletes training there. However, that does not change the fact that many institutions abuse the title.

High performance is not something you can justify by simply giving yourself, your institution, or facility that title. So, is high performance about the equipment and facilities in which you work with your athletes? The latest equipment certainly adds value to your program. Having velocity-based training (VBT) tools like GymAware, Tendo, or Push Bands advance strength and power training in your gym. Guys like Bryan Mann, Dan Baker, and Mladen Jovanovic or his articles, “The future of Velocity Based Training” or “Velocity Based Strength Training” put out quality information on how these tools can enhance your athletes’ training programs.

Advanced GPS Systems such as Catapult provide coaches and sports scientists with a wide array of sports analytics information. Performance management systems such as Omegawave allow you to monitor training, holistic, and lifestyle stress and readiness to train so you can adjust your training program if need be.

You can go on and on about the wide array of different technologies constantly being developed and updated to offer anyone involved in athletic performance development all the information they could require. But coaches and athletes were achieving world-class performances in years gone by without all this data and information. So how could you fail to be high-performance today with access to all those gadgets and numbers?

Does having all this equipment automatically qualify you as high-performance? No. Can you be high-performance without this stuff? Yes. Don’t get me wrong. Of course, it is awesome to have access to these tools, high-level facilities, the latest treadmills, running tracks, properly maintained courts and fields, and so forth. But not having it is not a barrier to high performance and excelling in competition.

Are the latest greatest, biggest, and brightest new types of equipment and facilities a prerequisite of high performance?

High performance is about much more than the name and facilities and equipment. It is not merely about capturing data. As many have said before me, collecting data has no value unless you utilize it properly. Are you monitoring athletes’ progress to gauge how your program is working for them, or to adjust future training practices? Spreadsheets, folders, and filing cabinets full of numbers are useless unless they impact your coaching.

Why is it so hard to understand that data without context is just a collection of random numbers.

— Vern Gambetta (@coachgambetta) September 11, 2015

What, then, is a real high-performance environment? To me, it consists of three simple, yet major facets: people, philosophies, and culture.

People

People are, or should be, your greatest commodity, your greatest resource in a high-performance environment. Talented, driven, inquisitive and ambitious people are essential You should never lose sight of the fact that people are at the center of everything when it comes to high performance.

Nice amenities do not cultivate talent … hardship does. – Brett Bartholomew

People use facilities as an excuse when in reality it is a failure of creativity. – Dan Pfaff

Learned, experienced, and forward-thinking coaches. Talented athletes with the right blend of innate physical gifts and psychological makeup: the right character, openness to coaching, discipline, and willingness to work hard. Support staff with the skills and knowledge to augment the training process, enhance the delivery of programs to athletes, and complement the coach–athlete relationship. All these people are far more important than equipment and facilities. World-class coaches working with top athletes can produce world-class performances with only basic equipment and facilities. The reverse does not necessarily hold true. Producing a high-performance environment with elite facilities but without world-class people is virtually impossible.

Philosophy

While you must attract, recruit, and hire elite performers in all areas of your organization, that is only the start. Once you have the right people in the right positions, you need to educate them, develop them, and allow them to grow. This must be a basic tenet of your overarching philosophy.

Many coaches have a very large toolbox but cannot decide what to do because they don’t have a philosophy. – Dan Pfaff

Dan Pfaff has 40 years’ experience at the sharp end of sport, including helping Olympic long jump champion Greg Rutherford complete a clean sweep of major titles by winning the World Championships in Beijing in August (Fabrice Lapierre, also coached by Dan, took silver).

High-performance environments produce high-performance results.

Working out of Phoenix, Arizona-based Altis, Dan believes successful coaches require a governing philosophy. How can you generate logical, sensible, and effective programs and adapt them to the chaotic environments of elite sport and human physiology and psychology without a defining philosophy?

Dan recently summed up his philosophy: “Training should be enjoyable, educational, and mechanically efficient.” All coaches need a similar guiding philosophy. They should be able to define it in relatively simple terms, clearly and precisely.

In an interview, UK-based sports scientist and strength and conditioning specialist John Kiely also advocated the benefits and necessity of a coaching philosophy underpinning everything you do: “Your background philosophy steers all training designs and decisions: it should be a fusion of all your experiences and learning. If you want it to be robust, you need to invest time and energy; you need to evolve it.”

You get pretty consistent messages coming out of Phoenix (though the guys at Altis are not afraid to disagree with each other). Stuart McMillan also champions the need for a coaching philosophy in his excellent series of articles, “A Coaches’ Guide to Strength Development.” I strongly recommend the entire series.

“Good coaches are better able to learn from history—because they have a philosophy,” he says, and adds that “a philosophy protects from the comings and goings of the various trends that permeate the profession. Good coaches maintain a core set of principles—and are far less influenced by the current trends of the day.”

Stuart records his philosophy annually, restricting himself to a single side of paper. Being that exact and precise allows him to dial in on what is really important. Stuart identified his major principles as

1. Mastery of the Basics
2. The Planning Trap
3. Micro dictates Macro

If one line sums up mastery of the basics, it is this—consistent application of the fundamentals. Only through applying consistent stimuli and analyzing the results can you make more confident predictions of how athletes will respond and adapt to current and future training.

Emotional attachment to a painstakingly prepared training program is what Stuart terms the planning trap. Coaches often write these detailed plans weeks and months ahead of being carried out. Devoting so much time and energy to constructing an intricate plan makes it difficult for the emotionally attached coach to deviate in the midst of delivering it, according to the physical and emotional state of athletes and how they are responding.

McMillan’s micro-organization has certain repeating fixtures throughout each cycle. For example, Monday is potentiation day, followed by acceleration day on Tuesday. There is little variation in the program in terms of structure and loading in relative terms. So in this way the micro dictates the macro.

Altis, therefore, is the very definition of a high-performance environment, with their athletes picking up five medals at the World Championships in August. Hopefully, these examples highlighting the emphasis they put on creating a guiding philosophy show how vitally important it is to operate as a high-performance coach within a high-performance environment.

Culture

The remaining vital facet in operating a truly high-performance program is culture. Culture encapsulates the ethos, values, principles, and beliefs of the people and the environment as a whole. Culture can be a powerful driver in your organization by instilling a subconscious driver of desirable behavior among everyone involved in the program.

Build a program and a culture that is built on positive expectation and accountability. – Chidi Enyia, sprints coach, Altis.

Rugby fans are fully aware of the culture of the All Blacks, the New Zealand national rugby team with probably the best all-time winning percentage of any team, a staggering 78%!. That percentage has climbed to 84% since the sport went professional. Part of the reason a team from such a small country (population 4 million compared to 50+ million in England) can be so dominant in the Rugby Union is its culture.

All Blacks Captain Richie McCaw and Coach Graham Henry celebrate winning the 2011 World Cup. Culture plays a critical role in their unparalleled success.

For a sports team littered with superstars, there is a humility, dedication to hard work and doing what needs to be done. “Ego has to be left at the door; there is a rigidly enforced ‘no d—head policy’ in the squad, and every player takes turns in sweeping the changing room clean after each game,” says assistant coach Gilbert Enoka. Players themselves—not just the coaches—enforce standards. Players who transgress are answerable to their teammates.

The All Black mantra is “leave the jersey in a better place.” There is strict accountability and responsibility. The team, the jersey, and the role models they are required to be stand far above and beyond the needs or wants of the individual. This is an exceptional culture at work.

Culture drives Habits
Habits drive Behavior
Behavior drives Results!
– Alan Stein

Working in an established high-performance culture is one thing, but what about developing your own culture? Brett Bartholomew often extols the importance of creating a culture. In this article, he discusses his views on nurturing the right culture. In the gym and in training, athletes must move with a “violent grace.” He links the explosive intent of a squat or Olympic lift to a sprinter exploding out of the blocks or a throwing athlete launching their chosen implement to their training—in every case, bringing a focused intent to the work they are doing.

Brett remarks that there are many painters but few artists in coaching. Many coaches have all the paintbrushes and color palettes but cannot paint a picture. Starting the session with the “why”— the desired outcomes of the session and their relevance—brings the painting to life for the athlete. This idea is reinforced at the end of the session by helping the athlete to identify and understand what just took place.

This ties in neatly with Dan Pfaff’s coaching philosophy and the overall philosophy of athlete education at Altis. Altis proves that high performance is not about equipment and facilities. They utilize a University track and rent the strength and conditioning suite. Altis coaches expect athletes to “become PhDs in their sport.”

This approach can be summed up by Altis founder John Godina: “My only hope is that we can continue to be able to help everybody that could possibly want help from us; it is a good problem to have when your biggest concern is being able to keep up with the demand. I work hard to make sure our coaches and administrative team have everything inline for what they need, so they feel like they are pursuing what they love to do the best way possible. If we take care of our people, then I know that the athletes will always have a great place to be.”

Altis provides graphic evidence that people, philosophy, and culture are the key pillars to a high-performance environment. These three elements are intertwined, difficult to separate, and there is a great deal of overlap. How much does one drive the others? It is a bit of a chicken and the egg situation. Good people with strong, enlightened and efficient philosophies drive a positive and effective culture but each pillar reinforces and develops the other.

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

 

When running a business which deals with high school athletes, parents sometimes contact me when their child seems to lack a skill that is forcing them to fall behind their peers. Even if the child was at the top of their game at one time, they’ve fallen behind and are frustrated. To help their child succeed and achieve their goals, the parents bring in outside help.

One of the first traits the parents always mention is first step quickness. From what they’ve seen, there’s something that causes the child to be a step slow. Or the child can’t get past the opposing players as they once did.

When we plan a path to improve this, they’re often disappointed that the issue is not about being quicker. It’s about moving the body’s center of mass faster.

As I have mentioned in previous blogs, JB Morin’s research on acceleration has surfaced recently. For those who want to cut to the chase, look at Peter Weyand’s and Ken Clark’s review of Morin’s research. They conclude two things. First, horizontal force applied in a useful manner is a key determinant of speed. We will focus on this in a coming blog.

Second, there’s a speed difference in the 0 step. The 0 step is the acceleration from the block to the first step. Morin’s research showed a 0.5m/s difference between the 10.0 athlete and the 10.5 athlete. It accounted for 80% of the difference among the athletes tested.

After reading these papers, my “rabbit hole” turned into researching the 0 step. It took me months to truly understand the concept.

I had two flashes that helped me put the idea together. The first was in Austin, Texas, where I was hosting a Reflexive Performance Reset seminar. Peter Holmertz, President of 1080 motion, gave me a tour of the city and took me to notable, cutting edge facilities in Texas. We stopped at one of the best planned facilities I’ve seen called Xceleration Sports Performance Labs owned by Matt Neel. He commented, “It is great if we know all of this stuff. The trick is to communicate it with your athletes.” He had a special grid that communicated to his athletes their 0 step. It suddenly made sense to me.

My second epiphany happened during the first night of the TrackandFootballConsortium IV. I spoke before Stuart McMillan of ALTIS and talked about the importance of the 0 step. In his great presentation, he talked about five things a coach can do better. One of his topics was the 0 step.

However, he had a much better term than 0 step. He called it projection. This is a far better word to use to communicate to my athletes what we are striving for when coming out of the blocks.

When explaining the 0 step, talk to your athletes about projection. Share on X

With these new guiding principles, I went to work on my project to figure all of this out. I wanted to see what it would take to get my athletes to project their body further “coming out of the blocks.”

Using my 1080 Sprint to collect data, I wanted to see how and why some were better than others at this. I wanted to use the MySprint app as well, but Chicago had some bad weather that made running outside difficult. (I don’t know which hinders runners more, 0-degree temps, 8” of snow, or that to save money, the village does a poor job of plowing and salting.)

In conjunction with that, I stole Matt Neel’s idea of measuring the athlete’s hip distance when their foot hits the ground. Currently, I’ve measured about 25 athletes, with more to come. I picked four of them to show different aspects of what I’ve found. I am looking at N/kg, w/kg and velocity at 0.5m, and their projection distance. The first three numbers were taken from the Sprint 1080 with 1KG of resistance.

From these examples and others that I have stored on my 1080 chart, we see that force is an important factor in getting the body out. I like to use force/body weight because it puts all athletes on an equal playing field. Also, from all of the data I’ve collected over the last 18 months, N/kg and w/kg seem to be the determining factors in acceleration.

Force gets the body out of the blocks. N/kg and w/kg help determine acceleration. Share on X

Isiah doesn’t quite fit into the scheme. While having the best time and power output, his N/kg is not the best. He is an athlete who gets his feet down quickly, pushes quickly, and generates power quickly. All athletes are different and get there the way they know best. So, where do we go from here? Stay tuned. More to come.

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 love training my athletes with kettlebells. Have I been influenced by folks like Pavel Tsatsouline and Dan John? Yes. I also understand that the hype over the kettlebell results from its re-introduction to American coaches as some secret Russian special forces training device when, as David Landau points out, the kettles are really “tied to the Circus, Vaudeville, and good old Show Biz.”

Landau refers to the kettlebells as “faux entertainment, a crude weight implement that has many shortcomings.” So how do we explain the excitement over the kettle comeback? Landau believes it’s a belief in the apparent superiority of Russian training systems. He refers to Rocky IV as evidence. In the movie, the Russian boxer Ivan Drago is the product of high-tech training and sophisticated diagnostic equipment. He’s not like ole Rocky training in a barn and doing core twists with an oxen yoke across his shoulders.

It was Rick Bruner who clarified the reality of Eastern Bloc training in his book, Soviet Training and Recovery Methods. “In real life,” he says, “the scenario is just the opposite. The Soviets are training in barns and basements, and the equipment is forged from old railroad car axles. They also run in the snow. Most Soviet athletes have never seen a computer, let alone a computerized Cybex machine, a Lifecycle, or a Stairmaster.”

Landau confirms this, recounting how Americans visiting Russia in the 1980s found athletes using crude training implements. When asked where they were getting their training information, they “pointed to an old stack of Weider Muscle Magazines.” In addition to barbells and isometric racks, there were “a few odd weights that may have been kettlebells.”

So the kettlebell we know today is not a modern version of scientifically researched strength training equipment. It appears to be, as Landau concludes, a “rather crude weight implement that has many shortcomings.” Weightlifters from those early days admitted that the kettlebell had limitations and shortcomings. As Alan Calvert said in 1911: “The man who buys only a kettlebell and thinks that he is going to be able to train all the muscles in his body to the same degree of development is going to be very badly fooled.”

Why I Use Kettlebells With My Athletes

If this is the case, why are these big balls with handles a staple of my program as well as so many others? Proponents of kettlebell training—and there are many–raise some valid points. For example, John Powers notes that “one advantage of kettlebells over dumbbells, barbells, and machines is the dynamic, ballistic nature of the moves.”

His point is that athletes can use kettles to lift, push, pull, and reach. Their most significant benefit is that the “demand for greater inter and intramuscular coordination and kinesthetic awareness remains stable during the exercise.” More muscles and joints are involved in each kettlebell movement, and “the core, hips, and other muscles involved in stabilizing the body are constantly working.”

Kettlebell movements demand muscular coordination and kinesthetic awareness. Share on X

Dan John has often commented that “if all I do is teach a proper swing and encourage some form of deadlift, I know I will have an impact. The kettlebell swing remains my go-to for both fat burning and building athletes.”

I use kettles as a transition to my primary lifts: the trap bar deadlift and such variations as single leg deadlifts, single leg cleans, and step-ups.

Video 1. The athlete performs a single leg, split leg deadlift with two kettlebells.

Video 2. A deadlift with a trap bar is demonstrated here. I also have an open back trap Superbar that allows athletes to extend the back leg during these variations. I call it a half-trap.

Kettles serve as a good lead-in to these lifts. I specifically like the goblet squat and the kettle swing.

Video 3. This athlete demonstrates the goblet squat while holding one kettlebell with both arms.

Video 4. This goblet squat is performed with two kettlebells.

Video 5. The athlete demonstrates the classic kettlebell swing.

Video 6. The video shows the athlete performing a reverse kettlebell swing.

An article entitled “Kettlebell Lifting as an Effective Means of Physical Education” appeared in the 1984 Russian Weightlifting Yearbook. The article concluded that kettlebell lifts were suitable as a means of education for a wide range of sports:

“The appropriateness of kettlebell lifting is associated with the possibility of individual workouts, the technical simplicity of the exercises, the ease of obtaining, and the possibility of training and competing with people of different ages. Kettlebell lifting develops basic physical qualities and increases physical work capacity. All of these lead one to consider kettlebell lifting an effective means of physical education.”

Even though a considerable number of athletes are discovering and defend their use, is the kettle a magic orb that improves all aspects of physical performance? Is kettlebell training any better than training with dumbbells or barbells? Might the current hype surrounding kettles be nothing more than an example of what the great Dutch Speed Coach Henk Kraaijenhof used to describe as “old wine in new bottles”?

I like kettles because my athletes like using them, not because I view kettles as better than other strength training protocols. I also understand why kettles are just one of many worthwhile approaches coaches can take for strength training. I think Mel Siff said it best, “Kettlebell training can be great, it can be fun, so can dumbbell training, so can barbell training, so can many other forms of strength training. Only don’t let one’s love for anything turn you into a fanatic who fails to see the merits in other walks of life.”

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. Bruner, Rick, and Ben Tabachnik. Soviet Training and Recovery Methods. Pleasant Hill, CA: Sport Focus Publishing, 1990. Print.
2. John, Dan. Intervention: Course Corrections for the Athlete and Trainer. Aptos, CA: On Target Publications, 2013. Print.
3. John, Dan. Now What? The Ongoing Pursuit of Improved Performance. Santa Cruz: On Target Publications, 2017. Print.
4. Landau, David. “Kettlebells?” David Landau Exposes Exercise Frauds. ExerciseFraud.com, June 2017.
5. Powers, John. Kettlebell: The Ultimate Kettlebell Workout to Lose Weight and Get Ripped in 30 Days. Kettlebell, 2014.
6. Siff, Mel. “Re: Kettlebell Cult?” Blog comment. Mel Siff Supertraining Archive. Mar. 2003. Web.
7. “Voropayev Kettlebell Lifting as an Effective Means of Physical Education (1983) and Others, in English.” StrongFirst.com (Forum for Strength). June 2017. Web.

If there’s one nutrient that’s most strongly linked to athletic performance, it’s protein. There are so many myths, or bro-science, regarding protein requirements that it’s easy to be misled and confused. Further complicating the issue, supplement companies aggressively target athletes with marketing about the need for protein. In this article, I’ll look at what the research suggests is the best practice for athletes when it comes to protein intake and timing.

Protein Explained

Before we dig into the sports-specific research, I’ll quickly explain what protein is. There are three major macronutrients: carbohydrates and fat, which our bodies mainly use as fuel, and protein, which we primarily use for growth and repair (in certain situations it can also be used as a fuel). Each gram of protein provides about four kilocalories (kcal) of energy–the same as carbohydrates.

Proteins are long chains of amino acids joined together by peptide bonds. Some of these amino acids cannot be produced by the body, so we need to get them from our diet. These are called essential amino acids, of which there are nine. Six amino acids are termed conditionally essential; while the body can produce these from other nutrients, this ability can be significantly reduced during periods of stress. Finally, there are five amino acids which the body can produce itself; these are called dispensable amino acids.

Whenever we eat protein in whole forms, such as food and protein powder, we are consuming a mix of these amino acids. Within the essential amino acids, there is a sub-group called branched-chain amino acids (BCAA), which again are aggressively marketed by nutrition companies. These BCAAs are leucine, isoleucine, and valine, and they have important roles. Ideally, about 35% of our protein should be in the form of BCAAs. Fortunately, that’s the rough ratio of BCAAs found in most food products.

Protein has several roles in the human body, many of which are important to athletes, and is abundant in our bodies. There are structural proteins, such as those found in muscle and skin, and functional proteins, such as enzymes, growth factors, and parts of the immune system. When we exercise, we cause damage to our muscles. As our muscles are largely comprised of proteins, we need to repair and replace the damaged proteins; this can also lead to hypertrophy. Amino acids also play a role in a variety of different metabolic pathways, support immune function, and can be used as energy.

Protein Requirements for Athletes

It appears logical that athletes, who are engaged in a greater amount of exercise and will suffer from greater protein damage and turnover, will need more than a “normal” human. The typical recommendation for non-athletes is around 0.8g of protein per kilogram of bodyweight per day. Individuals who consume animal products regularly will likely get sufficient amounts through their diets.

How Much Protein Do Athletes Need?

But how much do athletes need? Several research papers have attempted to answer this question, and one of the key researchers in this field is Professor Stuart Phillips from McMaster University. In a paper from 2006, Phillips explained that many studies support the notion that athletes of all kinds have higher protein requirements than sedentary individuals.

In a 1992 paper, Lemon and colleagues reported that, in a group of twelve resistance training males, protein requirements were 1.6-1.7g per kilogram of body weight per day–double the recommended daily allowance (RDA). There appeared to be no benefit regarding muscle strength or size with higher protein intake (the researchers tested 2.6g/kg/BW). These results were mirrored by Tarnopolsky and colleagues in another 1992 paper finding that 1.76g/kg/BW of protein per day was optimal for strength-trained athletes.

It’s not just strength and power athletes who require increased protein, however, with research suggesting that amounts above the RDA are also important for endurance athletes. Increased protein intake by athletes also supports immune function and guards against overtraining. Clearly, it’s important for performance athletes to have higher intakes of protein than the RDA.

Protein Requirements for Weight and Fat Loss

From time to time, athletes are also interested in losing weight and fat. In non-weight category sports, athletes usually want to decrease fat mass while maintaining or gaining muscle mass to improve the crucial power to weight ratio. It’s important to note that the optimal amount of body fat is highly individual, depending on a person’s unique makeup and sporting demands.

In sprinting, for example, during the general preparation period, athletes need to consume sufficient calories to support training adaptations. However, before the competition periods, sprinters typically aim to “lean out,” and lose a bit of fat while maintaining muscle strength and power. In weight category sports, athletes tend to live day to day at weights well above their category and then cut their weight before a competition. Again, maintaining lean body mass is important; if an Olympic weightlifter loses strength before competition, they likely won’t perform their best. Higher than normal protein intakes give them an advantage.

Several studies of non-athletes suggest that higher protein intake helps with fat loss by increasing thermogenesis as protein requires greater energy to metabolize than required by fats and carbohydrates. Protein also improves diet adherence by increasing satiety, keeping you feeling full longer.

While restricting calories, increased protein helps athletes keep their hard won muscle mass. Share on X

During periods of caloric restriction, increased protein intakes appear to successfully maintain lean mass levels, allowing athletes to keep their hard won muscle mass. A 2004 paper, authored by Stuart Phillips published in Sports Medicine, suggested that athletes undertaking a calorie restricted diet may need to consume as high as 3g/kg/BW per day to offset the loss of lean body mass.

Can Athletes Consume Too Much Protein?
Is there such a thing as too much protein? We often hear too much protein can damage the kidneys, but research indicates that protein intakes of up to 2.8g/kg/BW per day are safe for healthy individuals with no previous history of kidney issues. Higher amounts may also be safe, but it isn’t clear due to a lack of data. In an 80kg athlete, this would equal close to 900 calories of protein (224g of protein), the equivalent to 800g of chicken breast.

When Athletes Should Consume Protein

We’ve established that protein is important for athletes and that they almost certainly need intakes higher than recommended for the general population. The next question is: when should athletes consume their protein? Research indicates the BCAAs, especially leucine, activate a number of key enzymes involved in muscle hypertrophy and repair. Based on this, it seems obvious that we want to consume at least some protein around the time of our training session to allow this activation to occur.

After resistance training, combining protein and carbohydrates increases muscle protein synthesis when compared to carbohydrate intake alone. We can enhance this increase by adding leucine to the protein-carbohydrate drink. However, it’s worth pointing out that the subjects in the research study were in the fasted state–they hadn’t eaten since the previous evening. This is a common practice in research because it removes the effect of a pre-training meal; individuals might consume different foods which might alter what the researchers are measuring. This is a great example of how science doesn’t always carry over to practice, unless you’re performing resistance training in a fasted state.

Consuming protein before training may be more important than after training. Share on X

In fact, some research suggests that consuming protein before training is more important than post-training. Again, this is logical, given that it takes time for the protein to digest and be transported to the muscles. Based on these findings, it’s sensible to suggest that athletes consume protein both before and after training.

Placing this into a real world context, if you have a meal before training, ensure it contains protein. After training, have another meal with protein or a protein supplement (possibly with added leucine). It appears that 20g of protein post-training is the minimal amount. In a really good review on whether or not the post-training anabolic window exists, the authors suggested that protein intakes of 20-40g both before (one to two hours pre-) and after training were optimal for building muscle.

There’s considerable scientific debate about how often athletes should consume protein. There is evidence that the “muscle full” effect exists, where protein intake above a certain level does not further enhance muscle protein synthesis. For example, this study found that 20g was sufficient to maximally stimulate muscle protein synthesis, and any intake above this amount led to an increase in amino acid oxidation for energy. An earlier study had similar findings, stating the optimal protein intake was 20g every three hours while greater intakes potentially reduced muscle protein synthesis.

Ingesting more than the optimal amount of protein may reduce muscle protein synthesis. Share on X

We can conclude that we want fairly regular intakes of protein spread throughout the day, as opposed to one large serving. For an individual training in the morning, this could mean having protein at breakfast (this is the meal with typically the lowest protein intake), followed by a post-training protein shake. The athlete should have protein at lunch and dinner and possibly an additional protein snack between lunch and dinner or before bed, depending upon meal times. Three to four hours between protein intakes is considered “ideal.”

Protein Sources for Athletes

We can find abundant protein in our diets, provided we eat the correct foods. Animal products, especially meat, typically have the highest protein. And these proteins are complete proteins, containing all the essential amino acids. Protein shakes, which often consist of whey or casein, and amino acid supplements are also protein sources. These have the advantage of being convenient but are typically devoid of other nutrients. One way around this is to use protein powders in a smoothie. I tend to mix mine with frozen berries, spinach, and almond or coconut milk for additional nutrients.

For vegans, protein sources can be harder to come by, and vegan proteins are often incomplete proteins. Vegan athletes must combine numerous protein sources to ensure they meet their protein needs. This isn’t to say that vegans can get sufficient protein, just that it may require additional planning.

Conclusion

We’ve seen that the RDA for protein is insufficient for athletes in all sports. Intakes of about 1.5g/kg/BW are likely optimal for endurance training athletes, with slightly higher amounts–1.7g/kg/BW–ideal for resistance training athletes.

Higher protein intakes may be ideal at certain times, for example during a low-calorie diet. Eating protein throughout the day, including pre- and post-training, is better than a single large protein intake. As such, at least 20g of protein should be present at all meals three to five times a day, ideally with three to four hours between each meal. Finally, these amounts of protein are safe for healthy athletes, contrary to popular myths.

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