Blog

During my years of coaching, I’ve had athletes who became very good at the drills I gave them, but they didn’t improve their form or speed. At times, my athletes have gotten so good at the drills, they were no longer challenged, and they stagnated. I wasn’t challenging their systems. The drills in this article address important points of movement and show how to progress your athletes to make their bodies organize.

My Learning Progression

There is nothing like the spectacle of a track meet. The tension of 100m and 4x100m races gets everyone up in the stands before the gun goes off. The bell laps in distance races when everyone waits to see who has been hanging back and make the fatal mistake of making a move too early. The final jumps or throws in the field events when the crowd claps in unison to motivate the athlete for a bigger performance. And who can forget the drama of a final 4×400 when the meet is on the line.

Even before the meet, there are memorable images. My favorite is when all the pole vaulters are lined up in a big meet, waiting for their run-through. It reminds me of a jousting tournament with all of the knights lined up, waiting their turn.

Equally enjoyable is watching the variety of warm-up drills different teams use: watching runners go through their A skips in perfect unison, runners lying face down doing scorpions, or up against the fence with their hip mobility drills. I wonder how and why coaches pick their warm-up drills.

I, too, bought the speed dynamics video and used it for years. It was fairly easy to implement and, if others were doing it, I believed I should too. I saw Loren Seagrave twice in packed halls, and everyone was sold. He changed the culture of the warm-up.

Questioning the Purpose of Specific Drills

But then I hit a few hurdles. I questioned what I was doing when I had athletes who could do the drills very well, almost as good as the video, but weren’t improving their form or speed. Also, we were getting so good at the drills that they were no longer challenging. It almost became something we did just “because.”

I had athletes that could do the drills very well but weren’t improving their form or speed. Share on X

Then, I started to question the purpose of the drills. A perfect example is B skips. I know people love them, but I don’t think there is much pawing of the ground. To change things up, we went to a warm-up with a variety of stiff legged runs (Payton’s or Prime-times, depending on what part of the country you live in). They worked great early in the season but again, we stagnated.

Then, I found some things that really helped my athletes move along. The first was the implementation of Reflexive Performance Reset (RPR). Athletes use a particular recruitment pattern to move their body. Most of the time, athletes are in a neurological survival mode, which means they’re using smaller muscles to do the work. As they strengthen these patterns, their bodies default to these movement patterns.

For example, when an athlete sprints, he’ll initiate hip flexion with his psoas muscle and extend with this glute max. But when an athlete goes through his strength tests, these muscles fail. By performing RPR wake-up drills, an athlete can get his prime movers, or performance muscles, to become the initiators of the movement pattern. From a coaches’ perspective, they run differently. From an athlete’s perspective, they feel lighter and faster.

Frans Bosch

Also, I figured out Frans Bosch. I bought the DVD, Running: The BK Method, watched it quickly, and discarded its contents onto a pile of other DVDs. But for some reason, I was brought back to the DVD. And it clicked. So, I bought the book, Running. I think my copy has more of my pencil markings than the ink used to print the book. I started an email correspondence with Frans to learn more. I started to implement his drills in our practices and saw the impact on how my athletes moved. A big impact, in fact. We ran very fast. Some of the fastest times in the history of the state with kids that had no business being on that stage based on their looks.

But again, I hit another hurdle. We got really good at doing the drills about four weeks into the season, and then we stagnated. We were doing the drills just to do the drills. We weren’t challenging our systems.

Bosch then released Strength Training and Coordination: An Integrative Approach which offers insight into challenging the motor learning system. The basic drills are the elements of running—quick foot off the ground followed by a hip drive with strong lateral support. The result is toe off position with the knee under the glute and the swing knee out in front for a positive running position.

Drills for Progression

As we get better at specific movements, we need to challenge the body to find the point where the body self-organizes when challenged and where the body is allowed to get out of a limited self-protection mode. If we change the environment or pattern, we teach the system to reorganize and strengthen the patterns we want to strengthen. (Trying to explanation this would be a whole article in itself). The book explains this concept throughout multiple chapters. For a nice quick summary, check out bettermovement.com.

I use some basic movement patterns that we drill. I don’t like calling it a warm-up. Too many athletes think a warm-up is a social time when things are done just to get the blood moving. These drills become worthless once that attitude surfaces. I sometimes change when we do the drills in practice to challenge the “state of the body” or challenge the body when fatigued. The drills address important points of movement and show how we progress to make the body organize.

High Knee Action

We call these booms.

Purpose: To train the high knee action with support from the opposite hip. At least that’s how it looks. It’s actually a movement that trains the scissoring motion of the legs and teaches the “foot from above” principle. It also teaches a high hip posture of the stance leg. Once we’re strong in this position, we learn to scissor the leg in a fast action.

Progressions: Stress the movement while other actions occur, always challenging the movement to be as clean as possible. It becomes the go-to position. Key points are tall posture and reaching for the ground, and knees passing as high up as possible to simulate positive running.

• Week 1: Boom, just a switch of the leg, workout (WO) 2 hands overhead, WO 3 hands push or press, WO 4 halos.
• Week 2: Boom-Boom, same progression
• Week 3: Boom-Boom-Boom, same progression
• Week 4: High knees, same progression
• Week 5: High knees onto 1- to 2-inch mats with the same progression
• Week 6: High knees with a stop every 3rd or 4th step, same upper progression
• Week 7: High knees mixing week 5 and 6, same upper progression
• Week 8: High knees with a twist, rotate 45 degrees every 4 to 5 steps, same upper progression
• Week 9: High knees with 10lb bar on back
• Week 10: Up to 8-inch box with a stop, same arm progression as week 1
• Week 11: Stairs
• Week 12: Stairs with a stop
• Week 13: Stairs with light bar on back

Hip Hike or High Hip Action

Purpose: To teach a better position for the hips. Ideally, when an athlete is on one leg at midstance phase, the hip of the stance leg should hold the leg in place directly underneath the hip socket, and the outside of the foot should line up with the outside of the body. The hip of the swing leg hip should be slightly higher than the hip of the stance leg.

• Week 1: Spiderman crawls, lateral crawls
• Week 2: Step downs
• Week 3: Weighted step downs
• Week 4: Weighted step downs, wall touches with bounce
• Week 5: High knees with a bounce, lateral high knees with bounce
• Week 6: Weight overhead high knees with a bounce, lateral high knees with bounce
• Week 7: Weight overhead, skips over hurdle
• Week 8: Skips over hurdle, WO 2 overhead
• Week 9: Skips for power (speed and distance)
• Week 10: Skips power and speed with bar on back (no rotation)
• Week 11: Skips power w/twist
• Week 12: Skips power, halo

Ankle Foot Action

Progression: Works on the stiffness of the ankle. The key is to keep the ankles as stiff as possible.

• Week 1-2: Legged toe pops
• Week 2: 2-legged toe pops with weight
• Week 3: 2-legged pops onto mats/boxes (6-8 inches)
• Week 4: Alternating toe pops
• Week 5: Single leg pops
• Week 6: Single leg pops with mat on side, double leg up a hill
• Week 7: Single leg pops with box on side, alternating up a hill
• Week 8: Single leg up a hill, double skip prime time
• Week 9: Single up a hill distance, double skip prime time overhead
• Week 10: Double leg hurdle jumps small to big, single leg pops on box
• Week 11: Small box over hurdle over hurdle, single leg hops over hurdle
• Week 12: Hurdle bounce box bounce hurdle, single leg hops over hurdles
• Week 13: Consecutive big hurdles

A coach can adjust the drills at any time. While the goal is to constantly challenge the body to learn better movement, if the athletes are stuck, there is nothing wrong with repeating a week of work or slowing things down. To get a better picture of what the drills look like, I have some rough videos of the progressions for sale through my websites, Slow Speed Guy and videos here. Thanks for the support.

For those who missed the Track and Football Consortium 4, we have the entire Consortium filmed. We have great topics for download. Here is the link for the Consortium, including my hour presentation on the subject of this article that further explains the exercises.

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

Data collection has been a part of the daily routine of strength and conditioning coaches since well before the invention of software-based spreadsheets. There has long been a focus on quantifying heights, times, distances, weights, and much more within a strength and conditioning program. Regardless of programming paradigm, the ability to objectively define improvements in performance is a central need of strength and conditioning coaches.

While handwritten records have largely progressed to a digital format, the process and procedures involved in testing and recording data have not experienced the same evolution. The logistics of data collection and recording in a large team environment where supervision and coaching take precedence creates many issues for strength coaches. The result of these actions creates an issue: How sure are we that the data we are recording in strength and conditioning, practice, competition, nutrition, rehabilitation, wellness, and recovery is accurate and reliable?

The quality of information we have available limits our ability as coaches to make truly informed decisions. To better understand this issue, it is worth diving into the field of measurement in research, statistics, and analytics to gain a mastery of foundational elements affecting the quality of the information you collect on athlete performance.

Your Methods Matter

Whether you are using advanced technologies, a pen and pad, or a simple questionnaire, the method to your measurements matters. The measurement of physical performance metrics such as speed, time, weight lifted, length, height, acceleration, distances covered, heart rate responses, and heart rate recovery is a crucial element when assessing activity and performance in many team-athletic populations. Although measurement is only one of the many aspects that strength coaches, sport scientists, and all allied health staff must give attention to, its impact has the potential to directly affect nearly every area of performance. Given this reality, it becomes paramount to establish a systematic approach when considering measurement of physical performance. Because of the objective and quantitative nature of the data associated with human performance in sports, a more classical view of measurement may be appropriate:

Measurement: The assignment of numbers to objects or events according to rules^[1].

While the majority of information collected on performance is highly quantitative in nature, there are instances where critical analysis and understanding of the data collected becomes more subjective. For example, this may happen when practitioners evaluate the total distance of sprinting performed by an athlete during a single practice session, and subsequently try to establish a relative indicator of the intensity of that practice session.

There are many subjective factors that might affect the athlete’s perception of the session RPE that may not match intensity scales used by practitioners. Some of these factors include: the daily readiness of the athlete to physically perform, the physical preparedness levels of the athlete, the content of the drills performed, the nature of instruction given to the athlete, peer and authoritative feedback, and atmospheric conditions. In such cases, a second definition of measurement is applicable:

Measurement: The process of linking abstract concepts to empirical indicants^[1].

In this instance, consider the abstract concept as the relative intensity level of the practice session given by practitioners to describe the physical effects on the individual athlete. Even in cases where more qualitative analysis of information occurs, a systematic approach to measurement is still necessary.

As an operational definition of measurement is established, it is necessary to discuss the desirable qualities of the measurement process and instrumentation. A primary quality lies within the idea of reliability, or the extent to which the experiment, test, or measuring procedure will yield the same results on repeated trials. Reliability is an element concerning the consistency and repeatability of the measurements performed by both technology measuring performance, such as GPS, accelerometers, and HR monitors, as well as manual measurements taken by practitioners, including RPE scales, ROM and orthopedic testing, sprint timing, and weightlifting maxes.

Proper data interpretation will ultimately determine the success of the application process, where collected information affects future decision-making when planning activities. However, the reliability of the tools and methods is a primary factor that affects the entire data analysis and application process for practitioners. Because of this factor, attention must be directed to issues that negatively affect the reliability of measurements and create measurement errors.

The reliability of tools and methods affects the entire data analysis and application process. Share on X

Practitioners must accept that measurement error will almost always be present during the data collection process, despite efforts to minimize their effects. Practitioners must outline a procedure that reduces non-random error, or error due to a systematic biasing effect on measurement instruments. Non-random error for practitioners using high-tech tools may be due to the calibration of GPS units, connectivity of HRM to skin, an untrained intern incorrectly administering an Omegawave scan, or incorrect positioning of barbell velocity equipment. With low-tech interventions, non-random error could be due to improper wording of a question on a recovery survey, or peer influence on task knowledge.

Conversely, random error is inversely related to the reliability of the measurement instrumentation and is associated with unknown or unpredictable changes. An example of random error for practitioners using high-tech tools are an HRM losing contact with a player’s skin because of contact with another player during a drill, GPS satellite spacing affecting local connectivity to athlete units, batteries dying in an electronic timing unit, or other equipment breaking during testing. There are few ways to predict exactly when and how it might happen, but practitioners can expect random error to happen at some point of the measurement process.

It is important to understand that measurements taken by tools such as GPS, accelerometers, tendo units, and HRM will yield an observed score for a particular aspect, such as peak speed, heart rate ranges, distances covered, or acceleration, in addition to many other parameters. Observed scores can also be taken when coaches manually time sprints, measure jump heights, or record the results of a maximum weightlifting test. The observed scores obtained by the instrumentation and tester are composed of a true score and an error score:

Observed Score = True Score + Error Score

The duty of practitioners is to minimize the error score within the measurement process by identifying factors that can be controlled. The true score many never be fully known; however, a structured and systematic approach to measurement of human performance may allow a clearer picture of the true score to be realized. When accounting for sources of error, consider the following elements:

Participants

Consider the daily readiness of the individual athlete being monitored. If an athlete has incurred any level of acute or cumulative fatigue from prior practice or training sessions, the readings of that day may not give an accurate representation of normal performance standards.

Additionally, the motivation, mood, or intentions of an individual may cause errors in measurement readings. If an athlete feels they must prove themselves in any matter while being monitored or measured, they may give an effort above and beyond a normal daily expenditure. This resulting data would not give an accurate reflection of normal practice or the training parameters of that individual athlete.

Previous practice, prior experiences, or a lack of either may also account for errors in measurement. If an athlete is experiencing a drill or activity for the first time, the resulting physical performance may not be a true indicator of the athlete’s actual ability level. The readings would then reflect a portion of the learning and adaptation process rather than the athlete’s true ability level within the activity. An example of this is the monitoring of maximum speed during a particular drill during practice where athletes are learning a new skill or technique. While a maximum speed reading will be obtained from the drill, it would not reflect the true ability of the athlete at that particular activity due to a lack of practice and a lack of prior experience with the drill.

Testing Procedures

Regarding the actual activity being monitored, clarity of directions for the activity being introduced will affect performance outcomes. If the athletes are supposed to run at a specific pace during a conditioning drill, but deviate from that speed because of unclear instructions, the interpretation of the information collected is based on a false premise of uniformity in running speeds. This element is also present in various movement screenings where uniformity of instruction may alter the performance of one athlete to the next, regardless of their capabilities.

After administering instructions, it is also important to monitor how well the procedures are followed. Consider giving additional emphasis to the quality and clarity of initial instruction; external feedback may ensure that athletes fall within the desired constructs of the activity. In order to perform repeated sprints within certain heart rate ranges while monitoring recovery markers, speed, or time, athletes must adhere to specific start-and-stop prompts so they don’t create an error in the measurement of the specifically designed task.

Consider also the uniformity and type of feedback and directions administered by practitioners during activities—i.e., when a group of practitioners are present during an activity and offer conflicting coaching or motivational reinforcement to the athlete or group of athletes being monitored. This may materialize with variances in measurement of the activity performed, such as varying ranges of speed, heart rates, or scoring on a movement screen.

Scoring

When observing, scoring, or classifying data measured by high-tech tools and manual measurements alike, the competence or experience of the scorers and observers will also affect reliability. The practitioners must possess content knowledge of the physical activity performed, which necessitates an understanding of physiology, mechanics, technique, and tactics. Additionally, they would need experience with the proper use and care of the equipment, as well as in monitoring and classifying the parameters being measured during the activity.

When assessing data measurements, the competence of the practitioners will also affect reliability. Share on X

If the practitioners in charge of live monitoring or post-activity data classification lack competency regarding population norms of the parameters being measured, view any interpretation offered by those practitioners with caution. For example, practitioners unfamiliar with the potential for error in readings of speed, heart rate, or human movement may portray erroneous readings as being accurate and valid.

These errors can often compound, as is evident using heart rate monitors, for example. The subsequent caloric expenditure that is partially based on heart rate would also be incorrect if issues arise and are not identified. The practitioner reporting these figures to the sports nutritionist would be presenting figures that are inaccurately high because of erroneous readings. This is only one example of the importance of having observers and scorers that are both experienced and competent.

The scorer’s attention and dedication is also important, as oversights during the data collection and classification process will lead to erroneous readings. During real-time data collection in practice, training, or testing, scoring error may occur if the tools being used experience technical difficulties from uncharged batteries, excessive position alteration of straps and harnesses supporting the equipment, a change in location of the activity away from the predetermined activity space, or the unwillingness, in some cases, of the athlete to wear devices at all times during the activity.

Post-activity data summary and classification would require the practitioner to upload and review information measured during the activity. During the review, outlying values of all parameters must be identified to determine if they might be erroneous scores or if they are a reliable and accurate measurement. Making this determination requires content knowledge and measurement experience, as well as attention to the activity as it was measured in real time.

Instrumentation

Tools like GPS, HR monitors, accelerometers, bar velocity units, and other items used to measure physical performance can also act as a source of error during the measurement process. Basic calibration of both software and hardware features of the equipment can ultimately affect the measurement and scoring process, which in turn would affect classification of the activity. Initial calibration of software and hardware is a cornerstone of the set-up and installation procedure, and it is also necessary to insure that these parameters have been maintained during the course of normal use.

As the equipment is used daily, its actual setup on the athletes being monitored may differ if intertester reliability is low. Essentially, different practitioners setting up the equipment on the same athletes may not obtain the same scores for the same tests. Because of this, uniformity of instruction and technique of the allocation and fitting of the equipment is of paramount concern during this process. Any deviation from the adopted instructions and techniques may contribute to variances and the collection of unreliable information. A consistent and objective approach to the allocation and equipment-fitting process is a necessity for practitioners.

The Takeaways: Steps to Enhance Reliability

When approaching the measurement process, the strength coaches, sport scientists, and all allied health and performance staff must acknowledge that, to enhance reliability of the entire process of measurement, efforts must be focused on measuring on an individual basis. As attention is given to each individual athlete and each individual data collection session, practitioners should strive to enhance consistency of their efforts during each data collection process and apply it to each successive measurement in the same manner.

Practitioners should strive to achieve consistency of effort during each data collection session. Share on X

When focusing on the methodology used to enhance reliability, the standardization of procedures and protocols becomes the foundational focus of the process. Include all practitioners in group training sessions where working knowledge and mastery of the equipment, software, and technique is gained. As methods for implementation are developed, a written form of a standard operational procedure manual may be utilized as a step-by-step reference for the setup and use of the specific equipment being implemented by the practitioner. These written instructions can serve as the basis for:

Preparing the physical environment for data collection:

1. Determine the physical area of activity to establish the proper setup of live- monitoring stations, test recorders, spotters, and equipment, according to manufacturer specifications. All equipment must be placed at safe distances from the athletes and activity to avoid collisions. For low-tech monitoring, the practitioner should be stationed in areas close enough to safely monitor all aspects of the activity.
2. Think of the needs of the tools you are using. For example, if practitioners can choose a space for training activities, an area outside that is away from tall structures may be the most ideal setting, as technologies like GPS units rely on connectivity with satellites that may be affected at times during outdoor training activities.

Preparing the subject for data collection:

1. Educate the athlete on what they need to do when wearing or using specific equipment. The athlete must understand that they are to work and practice in exactly the same manner as they have in the past, unless specifically directed otherwise by a coach. The testing and monitoring should not change their normal effort!
2. Establish a dialogue with the athlete to help them understand the importance and benefit of assessing their performance. If any portion of this process becomes a burden to the athlete, their motivation to continue to adhere to the process will be diminished if they do not see a benefit. Give strong emphasis to benefits of measurement and direct dialogue away from all negative notions of assessment. In some cases, measurement of performance fosters competition between athletes. Use this to your (and their) advantage.
3. If the fitting of equipment is involved in your measurement or assessment process, give the athlete a simple reference for keeping the equipment secured during activity. A trained staff member should not only administer the fitting, but should also give instruction to the athlete as to how the equipment should stay in place and steps the athlete can take to address fitting issues. This applies to equipment that athletes wear, like GPS or HR monitors, as well as equipment the athletes might use, such as timers, jump mats, or bar velocity measuring units.
4. Ensure that the dialogue between practitioners and athletes is in relatable and understandable terms for the athlete. We can’t expect all athletes to have a mastery of Hz sampling rates in GPS monitors, or positioning of triaxial accelerometers as being algorithm-specific. What we can communicate to them is that these tools are also found on their cellphone, like a map application for directions, or the way their phone screens flip when they tilt their phone.
5. Communicate to the athlete that practitioners will be present on the field or around the weight room during training or practice to assist with any equipment issues.
6. Provide opportunities to foster autonomy when outfitting or setting up equipment in order to enhance motivation to participate in the measurement process. Getting the athlete involved in this process facilities a feeling of ownership over their results.
7. Give simple and relatable feedback to the athlete based upon measured performances. This engages the athlete with the process and further encourages a sense of ownership over performance metrics and accomplishment during activity.

Performing outfitting, adjustments, and collections of equipment:

1. Outfit all units on athletes or equipment in the weight room according to manufacturer guidelines and standard operation procedures prior to activity, giving attention to the way that other equipment, such as sport specific padding, specialized braces, or other equipment, fits around your devices.
2. Ensure each piece of equipment is powered on according to manufacturer guidelines.
3. Allocate staff members to be present during activities to assist athletes with all adjustments of equipment.
4. Make efforts to collect individually worn pieces of equipment from each athlete in person post activity to allow for the communication of any equipment issues.
5. Give attention to manufacturer guidelines in regard to keeping units powered on or turned off post activity and prior to data upload.

Live monitoring of activity:

1. Determine which staff members will observe activity, be available for equipment adjustments, and manage live data monitoring devices.
2. Identify parameters to be evaluated in real-time monitoring, as well as staff members that are to be notified regarding changes in the defined parameters.
3. Define markers of activity by creating manual or automated time markers corresponding to specific drills or periods of practice and training.

Practices for data uploading, input, and analysis:

1. Ensure that all units have been collected post activity and they remained powered on according to manufacturer guidelines.
2. Clean units prior to data upload, or according to manufacturer recommendations. If required, connect each unit into uploading stations and ensure that the uploading dock itself is connected to a power source. This is especially true for equipment like heart rate monitors, accelerometers, and GPS units.
3. If using technology specific to one athlete, like a GPS unit or heart rate monitor, check in the specific software package supplied by the manufacturer and identify all units as being assigned to the correct athlete prior to confirming the data upload process.
4. If necessary, have a staff member present during the actual upload process to ensure the upload occurs without interruption from software updates or computer error.
5. After the data input or upload from the session is complete, normalize activity parameters to reflect the actual time and events of the activities performed. Additionally, manually review data to determine if outlying data points are present and attributable to error in measurement.
6. Summarize information in accordance with the desired application of data. (This is the subject of a future blog—stay tuned!) Formulate a summary of activities using either offerings from existing manufacturer software or manually derived means such as an Excel spreadsheet.
7. Send a digital or hard copy of data reports to necessary program members from sports performance staff, sports medicine staff, team nutritionists, and sports coaching staff.

Regardless of the type of technology used, these concepts will allow for the data collected from athletes to paint the most accurate and reliable picture of performance as possible. Data reliability is a central issue impacting our ability as coaches and sport scientists to make informed decisions, and is essential as part of the foundation of performance analysis in sport.

Reference

1. Carmines, E. & Zeller, R. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

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

During the past 10 years, compression garments have been slowly taking over the athletic gear market. The days when loose running shorts to stay cool and sweats for warmth dominated are long gone. The compression movement has spread across all sports, and athletes of all ages, in a short period of time. There is a use for it in every facet of the game: compression for the heat, compression for the cold, compression for performance enhancement, and even compression as a restoration tool. Here, I will examine the use and effectiveness in the research of wearing this type of gear with the intention to speed recovery or enhance performance.

A 2010 study by Sear et al., examined the effects of full-body compression on a metabolically taxing workout regime with interspersed bursts of high-intensity intervals and bouts of rest, specifically in team sports (Sear et al., 2010). They found that the compression produced a slight enhancement in tissue oxygenation and, thus, exercise performance. It was proposed that compression garments improve the availability of oxygen after high-intensity interval bursts, speeding reoxygenation of peripheral muscles and metabolic recovery between intervals. This can be traced back to the therapeutic use of compression in hospital patients, especially diabetics, to increase circulation and prevent blood from clotting. Some studies have found that compression garments decrease muscle oscillation during contraction and prevent venous blood pooling, leading to increased stroke volume (the amount your heart pumps with each cycle) and cardiac output.

The compression-wearing group had considerably less muscle swelling than the control group. Share on X

The most well-known claim is that compression of the muscles can help speed post-workout recovery, by virtue of its effects on the circulatory system. A study measuring the effects of compression garments worn in the 24 hours post resistance workout coincided with this notion (Kraemer et al., 2010). The markers for muscle damage, such as creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), were both significantly reduced in the subjects who wore the compressive gear. Ultrasound technology was used to assess the muscle swelling in both the experimental and control groups, and found a considerable reduction in swelling with the compression-wearing group.

Some athletes prefer to think that the elastic nature of the material gives them an added torque in speed and power production, such as with jumping or sprinting. Research to support these anecdotal claims is scarce, however. Unfortunately, there is also little support for the use of compression gear for recovery from explosive power-type workouts (DeGlanville & Hamlin, 2012). Many research studies have found no positive correlation between recovery and performance enhancement with the use of compression during anaerobic exercise; however, aerobic performance demands respond very differently.

One study aimed the focus on a 40-km endurance cycling time trial in which trained multi-sport athletes wore graduated lower-body compression gear—which applies the greatest pressure distally (at the ankle), and the least pressure proximally (at the hip)—during the 24-hour recovery period between trials (DeGlanville & Hamlin, 2012). There was substantial improvement in the compression versus the placebo group in the subsequent time trial performance, with a 1.2% improvement observed. This may seem like a small benefit to reap, but for a number-crunching, top-tier athlete, these small percentage points may make all the difference in breaching the next level of performance.

What began as a therapeutic modality in medicine has truly evolved across athletics with a wave of acceptance and implementation. Much of the “performance enhancement” qualities of compression gear are merely anecdotal or placebo effect, rather than proven by true research. However, as discussed above, research across the full spectrum of sports continues to support and validate the use of compression gear as a means of post-workout recovery.

References

• DeGlanville, K. M. & Hamlin, M. J. (2012). “Positive effect of lower body compression garments on subsequent 40-km cycling time trial performance.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(2): 481-6.
• Kraemer, W. J., Flanagan, S. D., Comstock, B. A., Fragala, M. S., Earp, J. E., Dunn-Lewis, C., … Maresh, C. M. (2010). “Effects of whole body compression garments on markers of recovery after a heavy resistance workout in men and women.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(3): 804-14.
• Sear, J. A., Hoare, T. K., Scanlan, A. T., Abt, G. A., & Dascombe, B. J. (2010). “The effects of whole body compression on prolonged high intensity intermittent exercise.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(7): 1901-10.

 

Starting out in the strength and conditioning industry can be a little daunting. You know the basics of physiology and theory, but you haven’t fully discovered the tricks and characteristics that define YOU as a coach. You want to implement the newest program or exercise you’ve seen from texts, videos, or conferences you’ve recently attended. I’m not blaming you; these coaches present a topic to make it look exceptional, and maybe it is. The thing is, not every program, protocol, or exercise will be right for you. There are almost unlimited possibilities and variations when it comes to training your athletes or clients, and experienced coaches have their own unique system.

If you’re a new coach, how do you develop YOUR system?

Your system will be based around the characteristics that you believe are most important in developing athletes. These are the macrocycles, microcycles, little exercises, drills, and progressions that help your athletes achieve the characteristics that you are looking for.

You will figure out the best combinations, loads, and progressions to help you reach these goals for both short-term and long-term clients. These could be things like: how to improve short-term power for jump tests, how to shave some time off a sprint test, or how to improve Olympic lifting or bench press. As a new coach, you may have ideas of what you like, but, realistically, you probably don’t yet have the experience to optimize the achievement of these goals.

Even though you may not have figured out your perfect system or your go-to protocols yet, it doesn’t mean you have to sit and wait. Here are three tips to help you become proactive and build the systems that will work best for you.

Read the Research and Talk to Other Coaches

Getting my first certification through the NSCA gave me an opportunity that many other trainers don’t have—access to journal subscriptions. From my first day as a CPT, I was already getting issues of the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and the Strength and Conditioning Journal. In the past eight to ten years as a coach, I’ve realized that most trainers don’t read the research.

Don’t program blindly; use proven protocols to get results. Share on X

Do yourself a favor and look through research to find topics that interest you. For me, it was always jump power/height/distance, sprint speed, or power and strength in lifting. Every time I saw a paper on one of these topics, I read about the protocol used. Saving these papers has given me certain protocols that I have experimented with and know are effective. Don’t program blindly; use proven protocols to get results. The point of these studies is to try and isolate variables and experiment with ways to improve them. In my opinion, studies are one of the best ways to figure out your basic characteristics. Next, you need to figure out how to train for them.

The second half of this point relies on the human element. Find other coaches to intern with, talk with, or just watch. Talking to coaches can give you insights that you haven’t discovered yet. You don’t have to follow blindly or take their opinion as gospel, but you can expect that the coach has put time into their ideas and you can continue your research off what they share.

 

Everyone will have different questions and working with other questions can help you answer questions about data. For me, the first questions I started asking (about speed training), revolved around competition: How early do I taper? What volumes should I use? How much is too much? Since I didn’t start as a track-specific coach, some of these issues helped the way I trained non-track athletes. Fellow coaches and mentors can help you with real-world scenarios.

Collect the Data

The only way to know if something is improving is to track it. When I first started coaching, I focused mainly on the quality of the movement and skill acquisition. I could see my athletes improving, or so I thought. Realistically, I didn’t collect enough data to show if their performance was actually improving.

The more data you collect and the more variables you track, the better you will understand what your program accomplishes. This could be as simple as tracking volume load, ground contacts, and sprint volumes. Pair that with the results of your monitoring or testing and you have some explanations for your results. If you want to get more complex, use athlete questionnaires, HRV, and other tools to monitor recovery. This can give you a read into the way your athletes recover from your programming. You can then either adjust your programming to the athlete or work with the athlete to improve their recovery habits/protocols.

The more data collected & variables tracked, the better you’ll understand what your program achieves. Share on X

When I started, the tools at my disposal were either out of my reach, due to cost and availability, or very rudimentary, like a stopwatch. There’s nothing wrong with a stopwatch, but we have better options now. For speed, I like using apps like the MySprint App (below) and Coach’s Eye for both technical feedback and force-velocity data, but at a minimum you need to collect sprint times. Whether you use an app on a smartphone or a Freelap system, you need to collect consistent sprint times to know if your athletes are getting faster.

 

Experiment to See What Works Best

If you’re curious and competitive, you’ll have a million ideas on how to make your athletes just a little bit better. Some of these ideas will be supported by science, but some will be hypothesized from anecdotal information or science that might be loosely related. The only way to know for sure whether it works is to experiment with it. Pick an athlete or a group of athletes and try adjusting their program. Be sure to track their progress so that you know how the adjustments affect them. This will lead to some pretty monumental discoveries.

One of these discoveries came to me just after I’d left university. When I played, it was a given that we followed a four-day per week lifting program. This is old school football mentality—the more the merrier when it comes to moving iron. Due to a busier schedule, my brother and I both dropped down to lifting 3x per week. We were both done with football at this point. What we noticed is that the results seemed to be even better than when we played. After looking at it, I realized that as a University football player, 4x lifting with practices and sprint/plyo sessions was an insane workload when paired with reduced sleep and probably less-than-optimal nutrition. Don’t get me wrong, I was trying to do the right things, but lifestyle and external factors weren’t always in my favor.

For my next group of football players, I dropped to 3x per week lifting. My athletes preferred it, and it was the best coaching decision I’ve made to date. Instead of constantly being overloaded and overreaching, good results came faster. My belief is that the volume was more manageable, increasing the overall quality of the work, as well as the resources available for adaptation.

Don’t Be Afraid to Make Changes

Without experimentation, I might have stuck with the style of programming that I grew up with as an athlete. Instead, I had some great athletes who trusted my judgment and I took a risk. In turn, I made some important discoveries about my ideal programming methods.

As times change, your coaching will evolve and change as well, but you can evolve faster when you have a plan. I’d hate to see you sticking with something in your program that isn’t providing results just because you’re afraid of making a change.

Just like you are in the gym every day tinkering with cueing and technique, there are sports scientists researching different variables. You never know when the next “tool” or idea is going to be discovered. We often hear coaches say that relying on evidence puts you five to ten years behind intuition. If you open your network to the people testing these theories every day, you can start acting on information before a publication finally comes out with that information in print. This can flip that cliché on its head and put you on the cutting edge.

Remember, It’s About Getting Better!

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

 

 

It’s easier to show that an athlete is getting stronger than to show they’re getting faster. And if the athletes are gaining weight for bulk, it’s difficult to get them faster. The concept of “bigger, faster, stronger” is a myth. It should be “bigger and stronger” or “faster and stronger in proportion to your body weight.”

So, why do we lift? What can we do in the weight room to improve speed? We can improve force, power for acceleration, and eccentric/isometric strength to improve reactivity.

At TFC4, I was lucky to see Stu McMillan’s presentation, “Strength Training for Speed.” In this article, I modify his topic and take it back a level. I want to explore why we lift if we’re trying to run faster. And what we can gain by going into the weight room instead of running.

History of Strength, Conditioning, and Running

Let’s start with a brief history as to why the drive to be more muscular exists. If you look at statues of the original Olympians, they all look like they spent time in the weight room, if there was such a thing in Ancient Greece. More contemporary athletes like Jim Thorpe—jacked. Jesse Owens—jacked. These images created an ideal that all great athletes must look jacked.

Then, in the early 1970s, NFL players started to lift weights to grow bigger and stronger to dominate their opponents. Steroids were easy to get and became the rage as players could look physically imposing with their added weight. Linemen started gaining weight with the added mass. When the trend hit the Pittsburgh Steelers and they started winning Super Bowls, it caught fire. To keep up with the Steelers, other teams followed suit. The same parallels can be drawn with the University of Nebraska.

Enter the dawn of the strength coach. Boyd Epley institutionalized the concept of the strength coach with the NSCA. Now coaches could be certified in strength training if they followed NSCA’s program. If a single coach is responsible for 100 athletes and needs to prove he should keep his job, what better way than to put every athlete on a similar program with exercises that are fairly easy to improve on. Especially when the athletes are introduced to the training table and have access to thousands of more calories than previously. Size comes easily with extra calories as do gains in the weight room.

When college coaches go to high schools and see kids they’re really not interested in, they tell the kids they need to get bigger or stronger as their excuse for not recruiting them. High school coaches then take it upon themselves to get their kids “bigger, stronger, and faster.” They follow a program that the colleges use so they can say they’re doing the same as University of X. And with the various strength journals, a coach can feel backed by research. Now a coach can fend off pesky parents and meddlesome athletic directors if they’re feeling pressure.

Where do the speed athletes come into the picture? They’re lumped into the mix of athletes who are in the weight room under the control of a strength coach and are told that lifting makes them faster. And most athletes believe their coach. And unless someone puts a clock on them, no one knows if the program is working. And they don’t put a clock on them. Most athletes run a few 40’s that matter in their career. Even to get ready for the NFL combine, many players find a speed coach.

To be fair to the strength coach, maybe we lift because it’s the best we can do with the logistics we’re given. We have no space to sprint, so we need to do something in hopes that it will make us more prepared to play. It’s like the concept of the overspeed treadmill created back when horse racing was a major sport in the US. Some owners couldn’t afford to send their horse down south in the winter. So they built a treadmill for the horses to sprint on to stay in shape for the next season. Was it effective? Possibly. It was better than doing nothing. I hope this is the scenario for most strength coaches. With the best intent, we are doing what we can with what we have.

If that’s the case, what can we do to make sure that we have some carryover to the track or field? What can we do to make our athletes more explosive and faster?

Acceleration and Force

Let’s start with acceleration. I believe a critical component of acceleration is the concept of force/kg of body mass. (Thanks to Mike Kennedy, Nequa Valley track coach and physics teacher, Einstein Fellow Emeritus, for the explanations here.) Force is the change in momentum/change in time. It is the ability to get moving as quickly as possible. It is the first two gears in a sports car. In some research, it’s 80% of the difference between elite and sub-elite athletes. It’s the ability to project the center of mass further forward so the foot strike is further behind the body and can keep more horizontal force.

Force is the component that allows athletes to change momentum over time. Share on X

There are few problems with getting bigger and stronger. As athletes get bigger and bulkier, it takes a proportionally larger force to produce the same acceleration. However, if you cannot produce a proportionally larger force, your ability to accelerate will decrease.

I know people will argue that the guys in the NFL are big. Yes, but they are the elite freaks. Their body sizes are very large but proportional. They don’t look like bodybuilders. The skill players are small boned and look big on TV because they have no body fat. Most have their mass in the center part of their body, not on their limbs. Big, heavy appendages create more momentum going in places other than forward which makes bad running form even worse.

The other problem is the lifting. All athletes need to accelerate. The great ones do it faster than the others. In fact, some of the skill players in the NFL who don’t have great running form turned in good 40 times because they got out of the hole faster. They had great projection.

Force is the component that gets us to change momentum over time. To create force we need to push our body faster. More specifically in sprinting, the key is to generate and transmit a lot of force, in the right direction, very rapidly. This is where strength becomes important. So for the squat proponents, this could be your ticket. Standing up with a large weight requires a high amount of force. Maybe.

I find putting a bar on a back not only changes posture but also takes up the slack in the system. These two factors make the squat a different exercise than an unweighted projection from the blocks. Also, the intention of the movement is not the same.

If I put a ton of weight on an athlete’s back, their goal isn’t to project their body forward but to stand up with the weight. Watch how little an athlete’s hips move when they squat. And the stance in a squat is neutral. It’s a completely balanced and stable movement. In contrast, the most important aspect of a start when running is being balanced in an awkward position. Coming out of the blocks is a purely concentric activity. Squats have eccentric and isometric moments.

Coming out of the blocks is a purely concentric action. Share on X

If we’re trying to overload the system to learn how to create more force, we may need to lift or push something heavy. So some weight room alternatives could be a trap bar deadlift or a pin squat. I think both are good for pure force production but still have the problem with slack and balance. So maybe staggered legs. I do use the pin squat as well. Shoving a heavy sled for 2 to 4 steps might be a good alternative, as suggested to me by Ken Clark.

Personally, I use a Shuttle MVP. With the athlete facing down on one knee, we load the sled to body weight, and they shove back on the plate. We measure the distance or speed with the GymAware. The best equipment for this I’ve found so far is the kBox. In a single leg squat, we load the kBox with 2 or 3 plates and do just the concentric portion of the lift. We are creating momentum from a stop, like a pin squat or deadlift, but without the limiting factor of poor posture under heavy weight and hand strength in a deadlift. The force created by the disc also remains constant throughout the movement with no compensatory acceleration.

If you want to train without muscle slack, which is created when a bar goes on your back, any single leg jump without a horizontal or vertical counter movement is great. Block jumps without a counter movement are good as well. This is where one foot goes on a 12-inch block, and the other is on the ground, and the athlete jumps from this position. The goal is to increase momentum, and jumping does that.

Power

Maybe in the weight room, we can create power. The equation for power is power= force x speed. Power is gears 3 and 4 in a race car. There is already a change in momentum, but power takes you to top speed the fastest. In the weight room, we again try to replicate this with more strength.

More advanced coaches will try to add a speed component to their lifts. This is where micro muscle labs, tendon units, and GymAware come into play. You can measure bar speed or power output. In fact, some of my most powerful athletes were the fastest at moving the bars in the weight room. To make sure you hit all parts of the force-velocity curve, follow the Triphasic programs with overspeed movements. These not only eliminate slack but also teach the body to cocontract more efficiently.

While this is a good addition to the weight room, again the issue arises that the change in momentum happens with a bar and not the center of mass. Sled pulls become a good alternative. Pulling a heavy sled forces an athlete to create more momentum in an overload situation in a scenario where the athlete needs balance, lean, and proper posture. Keeping one of the variables constant can be a measuring tool. Track how far an athlete can pull a sled in 3 to 4 seconds. Keep the sled’s weight constant. Once the athlete stops improving, add weight to see if they can cover the same distance.

Sled pulls create momentum with overload and require balance, lean, and proper posture. Share on X

If you don’t have room for a sled or a prowler or can’t use them because they might wreck the floor, try an EXER-GENIE. Want something nicer with no floor wear, try a Run-Rocket. Want the best, buy a 1080 Sprint. Not only does it record all of the runs and captures data, but it also adds an element that no other equipment does—eccentric strength.

In addition to the power needed to pull the line out to spin the drum, it has an element of eccentric strength. While most sleds continue to slide after a stroke is completed, the 1080 continues to pull back. The athlete is slightly pulled backward while in the air, and the contact creates an eccentric overload on the hamstring, forcing a more powerful contraction. My athletes have sore hamstrings after a 1080 workout. No other form of training can replicate what the 1080 provides.

Eccentric Training

Eccentric strength is another worthwhile aspect of training in the weight room. I put eccentric and isometric into the same category. When we’re lowered into a heavy isometric scenario, the weight pulls us down. In a fast eccentric, the intention is to be isometric, but the drop will force us further down. A slow eccentric means holding a weight for a set amount of time. With my athletes, we like a split squat. A fast eccentric is a drop of some kind. Again, I like landing in a lunge.

Unconventional and contrary to research, my athletes do best with 30-second slow eccentric holds. Share on X

My fastest athletes are the best at these exercises. I know it’s unconventional and contrary to the research, but my athletes do the best with 30-second holds. We drop the time when they can’t hold the weight, and this develops some grit. These two components make up two-thirds of the Triphasic training.

Supramaximal Training

Supramaximal training is incredible to take workouts to the next level. Cal Dietz started using it with his athletes who made incredible gains in strength and power. However, in a truly eccentric overload scenario, an athlete cannot come out of the eccentric. I discussed this last summer with Henk Kraaijenhoff, who was around for the design of a flywheel with Carmelo Bosco, and he explained the reason to use flywheel training is to have a safer environment.

The coach can help athletes increase the wheel’s speed by pushing the wheel and create a larger overload than the athletes could create by themselves. They have to stop the leg curl with the extra speed. Using this technique brought my work with the kBox to a whole new level. We’ll do 1 to 2 reps unassisted in a squat, 1 rep with heavy assistance (the coach pulls the cable up hard with a handle) with the athlete going down on one leg and stopping the wheel, hopefully. If done correctly, they won’t stand up from the squat.

Author’s Note

I stole the topic of this article from Stu McMillan who spoke at TFC4 about “Strength Training for Speed.” His exercises were different than the ones I present here, and I’ve focused on other things as well. Stu has much better facilities so he can run year round and wear a winter coat when it is 50 degrees. Chicago weather is not so kind to allow us to run, so I need good equipment. Nothing, however, is as good as running to develop sprinting speed.

Stu rarely speaks at clinics, which is unfortunate because he’s an excellent speaker who challenges a coach to think. Both of his presentations are available for download.
You can check him out at Track Football Consortium.

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

 

The use of caffeine within sports is rampant. Banned at certain dosages by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) until 2004, today almost three-quarters of anti-doping urine tests contain a measurable amount of caffeine. In addition, when questioned as to whether they were planning on consuming caffeine during their race, most athletes competing at the 2005 Ironman World Triathlon Championships said they were. This indicates that the vast majority of athletes believe that caffeine has performance-enhancing effects, and that its use is widespread.

The Uncertain Benefits of Caffeine Use

It’s not entirely clear how caffeine elicits its performance-enhancing effects. A number of different mechanisms have been proposed through research. These include an increase in calcium within the muscle, which allows for an increase in cross-bridge attachments, improving muscular contractions and muscle fiber recruitment. This, in turn, allows for a greater amount of force to be produced. Caffeine also increases fat burning, which allows athletes to use up less of their muscle glycogen stores, saving them for later in the race and hence improving endurance performance.

Caffeine also appears to reduce rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and pain, which again allows exercise to continue for a longer period of time. While all of these mechanisms are sound in terms of rationale, one issue is that the support for each is inconsistent across the published research. Where one study suggests that caffeine improve fat burning, another finds no evidence of this; the same is true for improvements in motor firing rates.

In the absence of a firm physiological mechanism, it’s possible that the use of caffeine by athletes is due to their belief that caffeine improves performance—in other words, caffeine might have strong placebo effects. Christopher Beedie, a researcher based at Canterbury Christ Church University in the U.K., has examined this extensively. In a paper published in 2006, Beedie and colleagues reported the results of an experiment conducted on six well-trained male cyclists.

In this study, the cyclists underwent three experimental 10-km cycle time trials. In each experimental trial, the cyclists were told they were consuming differing dosages of caffeine: either none, 4.5mg/kg, or 9mg/kg. When the subjects were informed they were consuming no caffeine, their performance decreased on average by 1.4% as compared to baseline tests. However, when they were told they had consumed caffeine, their performances increased, by 1.3% in the 4.5mg/kg trial, and by 3.1% in the 9mg/kg trial.

From this, it seems obvious that caffeine improves performance, except that in each trial the subjects had actually consumed a placebo instead of caffeine. In this particular experiment, it wasn’t caffeine that improved performance, it was being told you had taken caffeine that improved performance. Interestingly, being told you hadn’t taken caffeine actually reduced performance when compared to other trials where caffeine wasn’t consumed, illustrating the possibility that there may well be a nocebo effect also present with caffeine use.

Caffeine didn’t improve performance; being told they had taken caffeine improved performance. Share on X

Researchers based in Torino, Italy, published another interesting paper in 2008. In this study, the authors got the subjects to carry out the leg extension exercise to failure at 60% of their 1RM. For the next two testing sessions, the subjects got a dose of caffeine and carried out the test to exhaustion at 60% 1RM again, before a final test, again at 60% 1RM. In this final test, only half the subjects got the caffeine, while the other half received nothing. The group that received the caffeine produced significantly more power in this test than the group receiving nothing. At least, that’s what the subjects thought had happened. In actual fact, neither group had received caffeine at any time; it was just an inert placebo.

Even better, in the second and third testing sessions, the researchers had surreptitiously reduced the weight lifted by the subjects to 45% of 1RM. This had the effect of making the exercise feel really easy, which the subjects put down to the ergogenic effects of caffeine. This belief carried through to the final test, carried out at the correct weight, with those who believed they had consumed caffeine seeing a performance enhancement when compared to a control group.

Overall, this indicates that if you think caffeine improves your performance, your performance will improve. In addition to this, if you think caffeine improves performance, and you think you’ve taken caffeine, your performance will improve—even if you haven’t taken caffeine! The downside to this is that, if you think caffeine improves performance, but you think you haven’t taken caffeine, then your performance will likely suffer. A study published in 2016 by researchers based in Brazil backs up these findings. They found that, during a caffeine placebo trial, those that correctly identified 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.

These effects aren’t just limited to caffeine use, either. They’re also present with the consumption of other ergogenic aids, such as carbohydrates. For example, a study published in 2000 put 43 competitive cyclists through two 40-km time trials. The first trial was to establish baseline; in the second trial, the subjects were randomized to receive either a carbohydrate drink or a non-caloric placebo. Some subjects were told they had been given carbohydrates, some were told they hadn’t been given carbohydrates, and some weren’t told anything. Overall, those who were told they had consumed carbohydrates saw an improvement in performance, regardless of whether they had actually consumed carbohydrates. Those told they hadn’t been given carbohydrates saw a reduction in performance—even if they had actually consumed the carbohydrate drink.

Are Performance-Enhancing Drugs Just a Placebo?

Finally, we have performance-enhancing drugs. It comes as no surprise that anabolic steroids improve strength in athletes. A review article from 1991 found that, in trained athletes, the use of anabolic steroids improved strength by an average of 5%. That’s a pretty handy improvement, and subsequent studies have shown similar results. One such study is that from Maganaris and colleagues from 2000, where subjects were given anabolic steroids, and improved their bench press by an average of 10 kg. Given that their previous bench press personal best was around 200 kg, this was a 5% improvement.

Of course, by know you can probably guess that the subjects in this study weren’t given anabolic steroids, but an inert sugar pill. The researchers then told half of the group that they had, in fact, been taking a placebo pill, and got all subjects to repeat the test. Those told they had consumed a placebo lost pretty much all of the strength increases gained when they thought they were taking steroids, while those who still thought they were taking steroids either maintained their strength or saw further improvements.

The key point here is that it’s not always the effect of a supplement or drug that is important; instead, it’s the effect that the athlete believes the substance they’re taking will have that can improve performance.

Given that the placebo effect can have a real performance-enhancing outcome, this can put coaches in an ethical dilemma: Is it OK to lie to athletes, in order to get them to believe in the efficacy of a supplement or training method? Many might see this as unethical, and I would tend to agree. However, what is clear is that athlete-coach relationships become crucial, because if the athlete trusts in the coach’s ability to improve their performance, the chances of their performance improving are higher.

It’s more important for coaches to improve an athlete’s performance than it is for them to be right.

Similarly, when working with athletes who have a belief that something is performance-enhancing, that belief itself is likely performance-enhancing—perhaps more so than the training method or supplement itself. This leads to the potentially uncomfortable fact that providing evidence to an athlete that a particular method has no basis in science could actual reduce their performance. What is worth remembering, and something that I often forget, is that it’s more important to improve an athlete’s performance than it is to be right. Sometimes coaches will just have to bite their tongue.

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

The Fibonacci sequence is named after mathematician Leonardo of Pisa, known commonly as Fibonacci, and is a series of numbers where the next number in the sequence is the sum of the previous two: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, etc. In nature, the Fibonacci sequence looks like this:

Early in the sequence, the step-by-step changes are fairly linear, but as the sequence develops there are larger transitions in place and the amount of change needed to grow increases. Athlete development demonstrates this same relationship. The time between each victory and real performance change increases substantially. If you only look at the process as a series of outcomes, then the opposite is true, i.e., large changes followed by progressively smaller and smaller alterations. But if we evaluate the process by the amount of growth that occurs then the parallels displayed are fully revealed.

In this article, I will dissect the training process in order to detail and show the type of growth that must occur to achieve high performance, the interdependence of the micro and macro relationship, and the keys to effective planning and action.

Mastery vs. Complexity

In the book, “The 5 Elements of Effective Thinking,” a story is told about a music teacher having his students attempt a more complex piece of music [1]. The students struggle, so the teacher brings them back to a simpler piece of music. They perform it better, but there is still something missing. The teacher then plays the simpler piece, and the nuance of it is fully expressed in his mastery of his instrument. This leaves the students with an understanding of “do less, better” [2]. Dan Pfaff puts this well when he embraces a willingness to reject unnecessary complexity based on current needs, and to simplify tasks, thus allowing for more mastery to occur [3].

The table above compares Edward Sarul, the 1983 World Champion in the shot put, to nine competitors who have all also thrown over 21 meters [4]. While Sarul was slightly stronger in his relative squat, bench press, and power clean strength, the true differentiator was his lifting velocity and the resultant “power” expressed at higher percentages of load. This demonstrates a level of mastery in strength-power expression that could not be matched, even by competitors who achieved >97% of Sarul’s competitive shot put performance.

This level of expertise was not developed by an exposure to maximal loads, but through an improved understanding of the intent to be strong and explosive across the entire developmental sequence. There is a wonderful visual of this in the Werner Gunthor training videos as well. These performances show that it is not a race to maximum weights. Performance is like an orchestra where the key players will vary in their contribution based on a necessary sequence and timing. Showing this commitment to the physical preparation process allows for a fluidity to be achieved where there is no distinction between strength, power, or endurance. There is no difference between warm-up weights and maximum efforts; there is only excellence in the task at hand.

In training environments that emphasize high performance, embedding good process within the culture is critical, especially if that environment is interdisciplinary. A quality process trumps analysis by a factor of six [5]. As such, the clarity of the signal received from the training process in athlete evaluation and monitoring is of the utmost importance. First, leaders need to establish standards and expectations that create an appropriate environment for teams and athletes so they may flourish. This training culture is to talent what soil is to a garden. Second, athletes need to restructure how they view the monitoring process.

It is critical to embed good process within training cultures that emphasize high performance. Share on X

Many athletes begin each session evaluating how they feel. This guides their behavior, and ultimately forms their character as an athlete. They need to reverse this strategy and begin with who they want to be as an athlete—this guides their Attitude and Behaviors as the No. 1 thing they can Control (A+B = C), and there is a power developed in the feelings they then have [6].

Training Process and Workload Distribution

The O-O-D-A loop—short for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act—is a decision-making framework that can guide the development of such a training environment. This approach focuses on agility over raw horsepower [7]. The OODA loop allows practitioners to know what matters, through athlete observation and monitoring; to measure what matters, through needs analysis and testing; and to change what matters, through the impending decisions and action taken [8]. Each phase of the OODA loop also allows for alternative pathways to be used to re-orient the process when necessary. The OODA loop optimizes process and knowledge of results, and performance can be evaluated immediately, leading to the next logical iteration.

In applied environments, the challenge is generating the right training stress, at the right time, in a way that allows for the appropriate qualities to be developed and expressed specific to current needs, but done so that we are also working toward a team and athlete’s ultimate potential. Whether training loads focus on developing or expressing a current power or capacity indicates the kind of adaptive potential those specific loads have.

Maintenance loads seek to neither develop nor express a high percentage of current power or capacity. They function to remove fatigue so adaptation reserves can be concentrated elsewhere or so the athlete can make a more fluid transition towards another season or training phase while minimizing losses of fitness [3].

Stimulating loads concentrate on either an acute or chronic potentiation of training to develop greater power or capacity.

Stabilizing loads focus on spending more time with a recently developed power or capacity so that quality can be expressed with greater consistency. It is important to note that expressing that quality with such consistency does, in fact, lead to the development of a general, special, or specific work capacity. This occurs within a narrower window of adaptation and, as this commonly occurs in performance, represents a gray area in development.

Adaptive loads take athletes to the absolute edge of their ability. As such, athletes must be observed and monitored closely, and such loads should be reserved for those who have technique that is well-engrained [9] (Table 3). These loads have the potential to help athletes to greatly explore and expand their current power and capacity capabilities, and should therefore be aligned with current development or expression needs.

This process basically represents redlining, and the time spent pushing the envelope in such a way is dependent on previously demonstrated resiliency and an athlete’s current form. At the high-performance level, this intensity is not an option, but it has to be intelligently planned and performed. This type of intelligent action can be demonstrated through a backbone of sport science: When you are attempting to push limits in this way, why guess what an athlete is capable of when you can know for sure?

Periodization that can coordinate athlete monitoring, the potentiation of our current training phase by the last phase, and the optimization of preparedness towards a targeted physical performance can be defined as fluid periodization [10]. This fluidity is adaptive readiness personified. It represents the willingness to embrace the knowledge of the athlete’s ultimate goal and their current capabilities, and then align training so they can give their absolute best to today’s loads based on planning and our ability to execute that plan.

Today, this intent is represented with what is commonly accepted as best practice, where monitoring directly influences the day-to-day training performed, based on specific “windows of adaptation.” However, athlete observation and monitoring has always been important to good coaches and this has been reflected in how they have approached microcycle construction (e.g. high-low models, vertical integration, etc.).

A good planning and training process anticipates the need for alterations in day-to-day training in advance, and considers issues of compatibility and complementarity in design, in line with the slogan of the Israeli Defense Forces, “Plans are merely a platform for change.” [11] Do not let language that sounds new and different allow you to forget what you already know.

Program Structure and the Contingency-Necessity Model

The question must then be asked, “What does this actually look like?” Reconciling the differences between research settings, where clarity and constraints are high, and applied environments is a huge leap. Resources are often limited and this negatively influences process and a training program’s capabilities. In the field, predicting training responses is far less certain. Insights from research must be tempered against that which you are more certain of.

A challenge exists in weighing sport science and research insights against training performance. Share on X

A challenge exists in weighing sport science and research insights against performance in day-to-day training environments. This is where the contingent-necessity model can help practitioners achieve greater clarity (Table 4) [12]. The contingent-necessity model lays out a rationale that shows why contingencies, i.e. future events and circumstances, may interfere with good process through things that are outside of our control as practitioners. But, more importantly, the contingent-necessity model also includes necessity, or constraints, as those things that can work for and with us to better control and direct development in the short-term, notably the laws and theories of physics, biology, and pedagogy.

No one knows what results an athlete will ultimately achieve or the failures they will endure. But we can use current sport science knowledge to establish the environment, standards, and expectations, so we are best prepared for contingencies. We can then integrate science with the art of coaching to create a shared consciousness that gives the training urgency and an initial momentum.

We use necessity and constraints to:

1. Test and monitor changes, weighed against standards and expectations in the short and long-term; and
2. To allow for the maximum development and expression of specific qualities, but done so implicitly so we can focus much of our language on team, communication, and successful collaboration.

Collaboration is about developing trust, affirming a joint purpose, and demonstrating excellence in the work together. This approach overcomes the cynicism many coaches have for sport science with a pragmatism applied in the day-to-day work performed. This is how the micro dictates the macro, how the key performance indicator (KPI) eventually outweighs the program, and how the specific complements the general (Figure 3).

Long-term development is as much a function of enhanced training quality and the clarity of the signal generated, where micro dictates macro, as it is dependent upon minimizing or reducing the impact of problems and interference (contingency-necessity). In the early stages, the program takes precedence over KPIs, but this should quickly change as we achieve more meaningful insight into an athlete’s adaptation process through the coordination of training, testing, and the athlete monitoring process. As we move closer to key competitions, specificity increases and general loads now function as an “anti-virus,” like software in a computer functioning to keep things operating efficiently [13].

How these loads are vertically integrated and horizontally summated is like the ripple effect of a stone thrown into a body of water. This, again, is how the micro dictates the macro, and shows us that, in the moment of victory, having paid the price of what it takes to win is all worth it when the work you have put into the process generates a clear and successful outcome.

References

1. Burger, EB and Starbird, Michael (2012). The 5 Elements of Effective Thinking. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey.
2. McKeown, Greg (2014). Essentialism. Crown Publishing Group: New York, New York.
3. Pfaff, Dan (2006). “Training Theory” and “Chronic Loading” Lectures. The Canadian Athletics Coaching Center.
4. Cronin, J. and Sleivert, G. “Challenges in Understanding the Influence of Maximal Power Training on Improving Athletic Performance.” Sports Med 2005; 35(3); 213-234.
5. Lovallo, Dan and Sibony, Olivier. “The Case for Behavioral Strategy.” McKinsey Quarterly 2: 30-45 (March 2010)
6. Greitens, Eric (2015). Resilience: Hard-Won Wisdom for Living a Better Life. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Boston, MA.
7. Coram, Robert (2002). BOYD: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War. Back Bay Books: New York, New York.
8. Jordan, Matt (2016). “Functional Asymmetry and Eccentric Deceleration” Webinar. Jordan Strength.
9. French, Duncan (2015). “Advanced Power Techniques” Lecture. NSCA Coaches Conferences: Louisville, Kentucky.
10. Martinez, DB (2016). “The Use of Reactive Strength Index, Reactive Strength Index Modified, and Flight Time: Contraction Time as Monitoring Tools.” J Aus Str & Cond 24(5): 37-41, 2016.
11. Sands, WA, Apostolopoulos, N, Kavanaugh, AA and Stone, MH. (2016). “Recovery-Adaptation.” NSCA SCJ 38(6): 10-26.
12. Sands, WA and McNeal, JR. “Predicting Athlete Preparation and Performance: A Theoretical Perspective.” J Sport Behav 23: 1–22, 2000.
13. Evely, Derek. Modern Trends in Periodization. HMMR Media: Feb 2016.

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 venturing into a biomechanics lab, it can be surprising to see all the work involved in motion analysis. Not only do researchers need to set up their costly high-speed, light sensitive cameras, they also have to attach reflective markers onto the test subject’s key joints while they’re filmed running on a costly high-speed treadmill.

 

Much of the current research has been valuable for identifying the mechanics by which elite sprinters apply big forces in limited ground time. What coach wouldn’t want to present to their athletes visual evidence of what they do mechanically? And to show them how their mechanics deviate from the “golden positions” that legendary Dr. Ralph Mann has used for years as his mechanics template for high-speed running.

 

Most coaches can’t afford this kind of equipment and don’t have easy access to university labs with the time to set up testing procedures for an entire team of high school runners. Fortunately, we can purchase or secure licensing for software programs that let us gather valuable biomechanics data without having to connect the dots the way the lab guys do.

Coaches have long understood the benefits of video for evaluating stride length, contact time, contact length, and the position of the limb at various points during leg swing recovery. This information is valuable because we know that stride length is essentially the function of flight time and velocity, with contact length a factor in additional distance.

As Jon Goodwin pointed out, “Since flight times are largely fixed during sprinting regardless of ability, stride length is largely the function of the velocity of the athletes during the flight phase. Stride rate is a function of contact time and flight time.”

The sophisticated features of many current software programs allow coaches and athletes to see that their attempts to lengthen stride can result in over-striding and that attempts to influence stride rate can reduce ground force and shorten flight times.

Software Programs

Programs such as Dartfish and Siliconcoach have served the coaching community for quite some time, and their software offers the features and ease of use coaches want. Other programs such as Hudl (formerly Ubersense) have taken analysis acquisition to a whole new level.

Some programs have a few requirements that are essential to generate the data coaches are looking to analyze. With Siliconcoach, for example, I need to include reference markers in the camera viewing area. The program uses the markers to generate accurate length measurements. I usually set two small cones one meter apart. The reference points could be anything in the viewing area for which you know the exact distance.

 

The camera also needs to be fixed and not pan to follow athletes as they are running. This does limit the number of strides that can be captured. The farther the camera zooms out to catch more strides, the smaller the runners will appear during the evaluation.

Tracker video analysis, which is a free download from Cabrillo College, captures accurate distances for moving objects. It’s a little more complicated than Siliconcoach, but the software is very popular and has enough tutorials to help even the most challenged coach use the program’s numerous powerful features.

Video 1. Here is an example of a video tutorial for Tracker video analysis software. The program is available to download free.

Cameras

Shooting at high speed requires a great deal of light. This explains why indoor images are darker and grainier. There are several excellent low-cost cameras that will capture high-speed video. I started with the Casio EX-FH20, which was a great low-cost camera with high-speed capability.

 

At the time, I thought I was scooping Dr. Mike Young on this model, but when I emailed him years ago, he was already using the camera. In fact, he had two FH20s before they were commercially available.

Although the FH20 was a nice camera for its time, Mike correctly noted that it was terrible in low light conditions and would “eat batteries like the cookie monster eats cookies.” Mike switched to a Sanyo which was much better in low light and could capture 1080 megapixels at 60 to 600 frames per second with higher resolution than the Casio cameras.

Over the years, I moved from the FH20 to the Casio Exilim EX-ZR200, the EX-ZR300, and now the EX-ZR800. I like the Exilim cameras because they’re easy to use, have many valuable features, and are small enough to fit in a jacket pocket.

 

All these cameras have improved greatly over the past eight years. My best advice is to look for models that can deliver high resolution at faster speeds while still performing reasonably well in low light conditions. But understand that any camera in a modest price range does not easily achieve the combination of high speed with high resolution in low light.

Video Analysis

After choosing a good camera fitting these requirements, you’ll find that most analysis programs have comparable features. What matters most is how you intend to use the software’s power to devise creative ways to deliver valuable data to your athletes.

For example, one feature that I especially like with Siliconcoach (which is available in other programs), is the ability to take overlay clips and “ghost” the images, a process referred to as alpha blending. With this feature, I can take clips of two athletes from different years and overlay them so that it appears the runners are racing against each other. I call this SIM racing.

As long as I film athletes from the same camera position on our track and cover the same number of strides, the runners from my current team appear to be racing against past legends. Better yet, in slow motion, team members can see which factors influence how one of the runners appears to pull away even though the beginning of the overlay shows them landing at essentially the same time.

Video 2. In this video overlay, we see two runners who appear to be racing each other. Coaches and athletes can compare and analyze each runner’s strides.

I also like overlaying images of one athlete from one year to the next to see if there are any significant changes in their posture or mechanics. I can also use this to assess if any ancillary protocols—like strength training—might have factored into any improvement; we like to believe that our workouts, and not just the natural age-related growth of high school athletes, contributed to the performance leaps experienced by our athletes. Video analysis also helps athletes see the progress they’re making.

Case Study

The following image (taken as a JPEG) of a video overlay reveals some pretty significant changes that may account for improvements in time from one year to the next. The sprinter came out for track as a sophomore. He ran 14.69 in the 100 and 31.94 in the 200. In his junior year, he lowered his time in the 100 to 13.13 and in the 200 to 29.11. What changed mechanically from his sophomore year to his junior year? Note the changes from one year to the next. The images were taken in the same stretch of the hallway at the same point in the training sequence one year apart.

 

This athlete was, by most standards, a below average sprinter. But he enjoyed the track and looked forward to anything, not just finish times, which indicated he was taking positive steps toward improvement. My goal was to find these things. For example, he achieved the Bearpowered deadlift Hall of Fame by pulling 2X his body weight (265 pounds) during his senior year.

 

“I think it is all about getting people excited in activity by showing them how they look and how they can improve,” noted Steve Stanley, research officer and lecturer at the Auckland University’s School of Physiotherapy and coordinator of Siliconcoach’s US market.

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