Blog

This article is the second part of a mini-series on resisted sled sprint (RSS) training. Please read Part 1 first. This article will not deliver the ’best resisted sprint sessions for your athlete’, or ‘how to periodize your sprint program’. Instead, the article provides the basis for you to construct resisted sprint sessions based on the requirements of your athlete.

A Requirement for RSS Training?

A sprinting performance model contains a myriad of factors. However, we can generalize physical factors into two broad categories:

1. Physical output
2. Efficiency of physical output

Increases in physical output for improvements in sprint performance can be achieved through both ‘non-specific’ [1, 2] and ‘specific’ methods [2, 3]. Non-specific methods, such as general maximum strength and power training, may provide an efficient transfer to sprint performance for less-trained individuals. Less-trained individuals may require a foundation of general muscle force and power production that is best acquired by non-specific means. Non-specific means are also vital for improvements in lean muscle mass, training resilience and injury prevention. Specific means, such as sprinting, will likely have the greatest impact on the sprint times of well-trained athletes [4].

Improvements in the efficiency of physical output must be obtained by specific methods. Application of ground reaction force, rather than the magnitude of ground reaction force production, is a significant determinant of sprint performance [5-8]. In a mix of top-class (World or European medallists) and national level male sprinters, acceleration and maximal velocity performance were strongly related to horizontal force and the angle of force application [5]. Performance was not related to total nor vertical force, suggesting that maximal and vertical force production are key determinants of sprint performance in high-level sprinters.

Conversely, in physical education students, the vertical force at maximal velocity is a determinant of maximal velocity during a treadmill sprint [6]. Furthermore, many will quote Weyand et. al. [9] regarding the relationship between total ground reaction force and sprint performance. In this study, the fastest athlete produced 1.26 x the force of the slowest athlete, with total force predicting 39% of the variance in maximal velocity on a treadmill [9]. However, this study used male and female participants of whom produced maximal velocities of 6.2 – 11.1 m/s during a treadmill sprint. The large range in participant ability questions the validity of the argument that maximum sprint velocity is significantly related to the production of large ground reaction force. However, both studies demonstrate there is a certain level of force production, required for improved sprint performance, but it does not provide evidence that total force differentiates sprint performance between high or elite level athletes [5-7]. Although every athlete has individual requirements, traditional strength training for general or vertical force production has a significant role in speed development in untrained, novice or slower athletes. This is a general comment as each individual has their own requirements for improved sprint performance.

To continually chase vertical gains beyond a certain threshold with high-level athletes may provide a polish to the gym records board, but with little positive effect on the stopwatch.

Horizontal-based exercises provide a mode of resistance training that can develop both sprint specific force production and application. Resisted sled sprint (RSS) training emphasises the skill of sprinting, movement-specificity, horizontal force production and application. RSS training can be accurately manipulated by changes in intensity, volume and concurrent exercise selection. Therefore, there is a real opportunity to periodize and program RSS training with the same level of detail and accuracy that we commit to squat, deadlift, jump squat and Olympic lift variations. Sled load can be manipulated to influence horizontal force production and application, whilst sprint distance and number of repetitions will affect the ‘practice’ time of the sprinting skill. Simply, RSS training can be classed as both a skill and strengthening exercise, increasing the level of transfer efficiency to sprint performance from traditional strength and power training.

Physical output, Efficiency of Physical Output and RSS Training

Many RSS studies prescribe load as a % of body mass (%BM). However, I will attempt to interpret these data to provide RSS training recommendations for volume, intensity and concurrent training.

Figure 1 provides a general overview of the potential adaptations to RSS training. As always, general findings should be applied with caution – know your athlete, know what they have and what they require. Decide upon an adaptation and chase it.

A load of 10%BM does not provide a stimulus for enhanced explosiveness in the acceleration phase [10-13]. Horizontal ground reaction force is greater at RSS loads of 20%BM than unresisted sprinting (URS) and 10%BM [10], while a load of 30%BM provides a greater horizontal impulse than 10%BM [11]. Therefore, we are looking at heavier sled loads for enhancements in physical output.

The efficiency of physical output following RSS training may involve changes in foot-strike position, braking forces, ground contact time and angle of ground reaction force [11, 14-16]. It is hypothesised that RSS training may eventually decrease braking forces (vertical force), providing a foot strike more under the center of gravity and thus increasing the time for propulsive force production [15, 16]. Therefore, RSS training does not cause adaptations for longer ground contact times but teaches the athlete to use more of the ground contact time to create propulsive force. Compared to light sled or URS training, heavy sleds provide the athletes with more practice of horizontal force application [11]. There are two common coach issues with heavy RSS training, and I have attempted to provide a resolve for both of them in Table 1. Heavy RSS loads may also improve sprint specific rate of force development (RFD) [12]. Using heavier RSS loads to improve RFD for sprint performance may be superior to traditional vertical methods (Olympic lift variations, concentric jumps) due to the horizontal application of force in RSS training. The specific intermuscular coordination required for rapid horizontal force production in RSS training may have a greater efficiency of transfer to sprint performance than, say, the mid-thigh clean pull. Further research is required on the relationship between the development of resultant RFD, vertical RFD, horizontal RFD, horizontal force application and sprint performance.

While RSS training can overload the force component, RSS force production is significantly less than that of unloaded jumping, loaded jumping or heavy back squat exercises [17]. I do not recommend RSS training to improve maximum triple extension force production. RSS training has many uses, but there are more effective tools to improve maximum force production [2, 17]. Regarding the ‘horizontal versus vertical’ argument, one may discuss the use of extremely heavy horizontal exercises (sled push for strength, prowler push) as a replacement of traditional compound lifts. Although training programs are never so black and white, I’d like to see a research group really probe the difference in performance outcomes following either horizontal- or vertical-dominant training programs.

Force-velocity curve and RSS training

The balance between how load influences force and velocity can determine long-term adaptations to RSS training. Figure 2 proposes a force-velocity (FV) curve for resisted and assisted sled sprinting.

I have a problem with FV curves that are built without a ‘specific’ action in mind. The terms ‘strength-speed’ and ‘speed-strength’ are meaningless when used in isolation. ‘Strength-speed’ pertains to: “higher force, lower velocity than X”. ‘Speed-strength’ is the opposite: “lower force, higher velocity than X”. Without X, we have nothing. I believe an FV curve should revolve around the ‘specific’ sporting action one is trying to improve. In this case, our sport-specific action is sprint acceleration.

The proposed force-velocity curve centres on unresisted sprinting. ‘Strength-speed’ and ‘acceleration-speed’ involves an overload of the force component and reduces movement velocity. ‘Speed-strength’ and ‘speed’ work increases the velocity component and does not challenge peak force production. In agreement with previous FreelapUSA articles (The Sled: Resisted Sprint Training Considerations and Resistance Run Training: Thoughts, Observations and Guidelines), to run fast, you must train fast – likely > 90-95% of the best time for a given distance. As aforementioned, I do not believe RSS training with light loads adds a sufficient stimulus above that of URS training alone. Why go to the hassle of adding a sled when a standard URS session will do the trick? Therefore, true sprint speed training takes place below the threshold line. Speed training is not prescribed above the proposed threshold. Above the threshold, we are prescribing skill-practice and strength/ power training. As with the majority of sporting movements, performance can be enhanced by training at varying parts of the curve depending on individual athlete requirements.

Acute Program Variables

I wish to be conservative with recommendations when discussing intensity, volume and rest periods. Unless one has an excellent understanding of the athlete, the concurrent training and program goals – it is difficult to prescribe effective acute variables. Therefore, I have provided a range of options in Figure 3. These options are based on 11 peer-reviewed papers [3] and three years of UCD High-Performance Gym data.

Long-term improvements in sprint performance following RSS training likely requires >2 sessions per week for > 4 weeks [3]. Acute variable selection for RSS training (Figure 3) differs little from that of traditional power training. Higher intensities require lower volumes and vice versa. An athlete may initially experience neural adaptations such as improvements in trunk lean during URS and a subsequent improvement in the angle of force application during URS – although more research is required to test this hypothesis. Given the high importance of horizontal force application to sprint performance, neural adaptations may be the most favourable benefit of RSS training.

Sprint training adaptations are distance-specific [2]. For example, if sprint acceleration is the goal, I’d recommend working between 10 and 20 m with the appropriate sled load. UCD athletes have shown an ability to maintain 0-20 m sprint acceleration for 5-8 repetitions at 80% maximal resisted sled load (MRSL) and 10-12 repetitions at 30% MRSL. I generally prescribe RSS volumes based on these data as once an athlete begins to decelerate, the movement quality and power output have already declined.

If improvements in sprint speed are the key goal, I recommend never to ignore true speed training i.e. unresisted sprinting. Adaptations are specific. Heavy sled sprints will not make you slower, ignoring true speed training will make you slower! I truly believe that the most efficient transfer of RSS training to URS performance is achieved when both variations are performed within the same session. RSS efforts allow the athlete to understand exactly what trunk lean and horizontal application can feel like. Successive URS efforts allow the athlete to (a) attempt to physically transfer the feeling of RSS trunk lean to URS and (b) run fast and feel fast. RSS training may a potentiating effect on URS performance, but this is still in debate [18-20]

Your coaching eye is vital to RSS training. Like any exercise, a complete breakdown in RSS form and movement quality is unlikely to provide an effective motor pattern or speed/ power stimulus. Adjust your acute variables accordingly and don’t be afraid to swerve away from the planned session. Be a coach.

Cueing

RSS training provides the opportunity to continue emphasising your usual technical sprint cues. Whether you prefer internal or external cues, they can be directly applied to RSS training. As heavy RSS efforts are slower than traditional sprinting, athletes may find the ‘slow-motion’ of RSS useful to practice a specific cue. Cueing an athlete to “explode” from the start may be useful, especially given the extra effort required for initial acceleration at heavy RSS loads. This type of cue during heavy RSS efforts may also help increase long-term peak total and horizontal RFD and peak power. If the athlete understands RSS training is about trunk lean or horizontal force application, the athlete may try to exaggerate their forward lean during the sprint. This often leads to miss-stepping and a stutter-like sprint. I often ask these athletes to “allow the lean”, rather than “force the lean”. Finally, it goes without saying that athletes should be encouraged to provide maximum effort to RSS training.

Summary

• Resisted sled sprint training is a ‘specific’ method for improvements in sprint performance.
• Depending on sled load, long-term adaptations to RSS training range from decreased braking forces, an increased trunk angle, greater horizontal application of force and improvements in the rate of force development. These adaptations combine for greater sprint speed.
• Although RSS training is effective for improvements in sprint performance, it is just one very small tool in the toolbox. General or ‘non-specific’ exercises, lifts for maximum vertical force/ power and true speed training are vital elements of an athlete’s physical training program.
• If the goal is to improve sprint performance, do not forget to program for true speed work i.e. unresisted sprinting.
• When planning RSS sessions, coaches must manipulate load, repetition distance, session distance, cues and concurrent training to achieve eventually the desired adaptations.
• Unresisted sprint coaching cues can be used directly with RSS efforts.

All papers mentioned in this article can be found here.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr Eamonn Flanagan and Dr Brendan Egan for providing feedback for this article. A huge thank you to Maria Monahan of whom continually researches, applies and challenges RSS work at UCD High Performance.

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

References

1. Seitz LB, Reyes A, Tran TT et al. Increases in lower-body strength transfer positively to sprint performance: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44(12):1693-702.
2. Rumpf MC, Lockie RG, Cronin JB et al. The effect of different sprint training methods on sprint performance over various distances: a brief review. J Strength Cond Res. 2015.
3. Petrakos G, Morin JB, Egan B. Resisted Sled Sprint Training to Improve Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2015.
4. Young WB. Transfer of strength and power training to sports performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1(2):74-83.
5. Rabita G, Dorel S, Slawinski J et al. Sprint mechanics in world-class athletes: a new insight into the limits of human locomotion. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(5):583-94.
6. Morin JB, Edouard P, Samozino P. Technical ability of force application as a determinant factor of sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(9):1680-8.
7. Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P et al. Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(11):3921-30.
8. Buchheit M, Samozino P, Glynn JA et al. Mechanical determinants of acceleration and maximal sprinting speed in highly trained young soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2014;32(20):1906-13.
9. Weyand PG, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ et al. Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements. J Appl Physiol. 2000;89(5):1991-9.
10. Cottle CA, Carlson LA, Lawrence MA. Effects of sled towing on sprint starts. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(5):1241-5.
11. Kawamori N, Newton R, Nosaka K. Effects of weighted sled towing on ground reaction force during the acceleration phase of sprint running. J Sports Sci 2014;32(12):1139-45.
12. Martínez-Valencia MA, Romero-Arenas S, Elvira JL et al. Effects of Sled Towing on Peak Force, the Rate of Force Development and Sprint Performance During the Acceleration Phase. J Hum Kinet. 2015;46(1):139-48.
13. Maulder PS, Bradshaw EJ, Keogh JW. Kinematic alterations due to different loading schemes in early acceleration sprint performance from starting blocks. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(6):1992-2002.
14. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Spinks CD. Effects of resisted sled towing on sprint kinematics in field-sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(4):760-7.
15. Cronin J, Hansen K, Kawamori N et al. Effects of weighted vests and sled towing on sprint kinematics. Sport Biomech. 2008;7(2):160-72.
16. Nogueira M, Viriato N, Vaz M et al., editors. Dynamometric analysis of resisted sled on sprint run. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive; 2011.
17. Okkonen O, Hakkinen K. Biomechanical comparison between sprint start, sled pulling, and selected squat-type exercises. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(10):2662-73.
18. Whelan N, O’Regan C, Harrison AJ. Resisted sprints do not acutely enhance sprinting performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(7):1858-66.
19. Smith CE, Hannon JC, McGladrey B et al. The effects of a postactivation potentiation warm-up on subsequent sprint performance. Human Movement. 2014;15(1):36-44.
20. West DJ, Cunningham DJ, Bracken RM et al. Effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration in professional rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(4):1014-8.
21. Bachero-Mena B, Gonzalez-Badillo JJ. Effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration with three different loads accounting for 5, 12.5 and 20% of body mass. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(10):2954-60.
22. Kawamori N, Newton RU, Hori N et al. Effects of weighted sled towing with heavy versus light load on sprint acceleration ability. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(10):2738-45.

In the spirit of the holiday season, I want to share experiences and anecdotes about the coaches who have given to me much of their time, energy, knowledge, patience, resources, stories, and honesty. I want to take the time to thank those who have been so generous with their time and hopefully, in the near future, I can pay it forward.

After serving as an assistant coach for ten seasons, including the past seven at Chapin High School, I now have the opportunity to lead the girls’ program. As our high school team enters the spring semester and begins to train for the upcoming 2017 season, the stories below serve as a guide that significantly impacts my daily coaching duties and my ever-evolving coaching philosophy.

Latif Thomas: Mentor

Last season, Latif guided me for an entire season and undoubtedly has had the biggest impact on my coaching philosophy. I’ve shared my experience with Latif in a previous article: “Changes I Made to My Team’s Sprint Training Program with the Help of a Mentor.” What I didn’t include in in that article was how I first met Latif in the summer of 2015 at his CTF Track and Field clinic at Harvard University. At the clinic, coaches are encouraged to roam around to different event groups and seek out information freely by talking to the other expert coaches leading the groups. Keep in mind that hundreds of athletes attend the clinic as well as dozens of coaches, so it’s safe to say Latif stays busy.

During a stop at the horizontal jumps session, I introduced myself to Latif and bombarded him with question after question thinking I needed to get every single one answered on the spot. And what did the guy hosting and responsible for the entire clinic do? He answered every question in detail for almost an hour, gave me his cell number in case I needed anything during my stay in Boston, and invited me to the “coaches only after-hours clinic.” Throughout the remainder of the clinic, he stopped by during small encounters to continue our previous conversations. Regrettably, I was not able to attend the after-hours coaches’ clinic because I had a 36-hour drive back to Texas with only two days to travel.

Months later, when I bombarded Latif with the idea of mentoring me, he replied to every email and agreed to be my mentor (I was relentless in asking him). Here’s the kicker. Latif is a coach first, but also an extremely savvy business guy. I offered to pay Latif along the way for his time and guidance, but he always brushed the payment suggestion aside. Latif has been paid several times to speak at clinics but never once did he charge me for his time and depth of knowledge. I’m an extremely loyal CTF customer because it has transformed our program. Latif continues to be a mentor, but more importantly, a peer and friend.

Best nugget of wisdom from Latif: His constant message is about getting kids to believe in themselves using what he often refers to as “Jedi-mind tricks.” Coaches must truly understand what is deeply important to each of their athletes. Only then can they have a true impact on their kids. Building this kind of genuine coaching relationship with athletes motivates them and allows them to grow and become their genuine selves.

Tony Holler: Generosity

Earlier in the same summer I met Latif, I started reading about this innovative “be activated” system (now called Reflexive Performance Reset) that allowed athletes to perform in an optimal state. Moreover, the more I read Tony’s articles about speed, timing, and sharing results with the world, the more I became intrigued with his teachings and philosophies. I quickly decided to attend the first Track and Field/Football Consortium in Chicago.

We all know people who post messages or thoughts on social media or preach a certain lifestyle, but their lifestyle doesn’t quite reflect their message. Read Tony’s political beliefs and messages on social media and add my experience with the man, and you’ll understand that he is a man of character and principle.

I arrived at the consortium ten minutes before it began because it was my first time in Chicago and I have a limited directional sense. Tony unexpectedly met me at the entrance, greeted me, introduced me to local coaches, and welcomed me into the auditorium. After the event had ended about 8:30 p.m. on a Friday, I was supposed to travel back to South Chicago for the night. But I was invited to eat dinner and talk shop with the coaches afterward. The event was held about 30-40 minutes away from where I was staying. When he heard I would have to go back at that late hour, Tony offered his spare bed in his rented hotel room for the night so I wouldn’t have to make the drive and could hang out with the coaches that night. Here is a man I had never met, never previously had a conversation with, who had zero knowledge of my background, and he allowed me to stay at the hotel he rented.

The next day, Tony and I had breakfast. I offered to pay, he refused. I offered to pay him back for the hotel. He again refused. He hooked me up with one of his PN Track speed camp shirts and, at the end of the consortium on Saturday, gave me a ride to the train station to Chicago and paid for my ticket because I didn’t have cash on me. I was the worst guest, having prepared poorly for my trip, and here was an Illinois track and field hall of fame coach displaying a form of humility and acceptance I was so fortunate to encounter.

Best nugget of wisdom from Tony: His athletes warm up explosively. Other coaches have often stated that nobody performs these dynamic warm up drills better than Tony’s sprinters. I preach to our sprinters every single day the importance of performing our warm up drills with purpose and intensity. Tony loves to feed the cats and then let them rest. Our sprinters now have every Wednesday off.

Gabe Sanders: Enjoy the Process

Gabe is currently the sprints/hurdles coach at Stanford University. I met Gabe at the 2015 CTF clinic and sat down to talk to him for about an hour in the hotel lounge. Gabe is a really smart guy, and the conversation was enlightening. What made the conversation valuable was that Gabe didn’t use fancy terminology or speak over me. He used terms and made references that made sense to me. As an educator, I appreciate a knowledgeable coach who can explain complex material in a manner which is easy to understand.

While he was moving cross-country from Boston University to Stanford, Gabe took the time to return a call and gave me another hour of his time to help me with some training questions I had that evening. Since taking the coaching position at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, Gabe has continued to offer advice. During the day, I will read a study or an article, and I will ask his opinion on the matter or his advice on a specific topic, and he usually responds within minutes. I consider Gabe to be one of the best collegiate coaches in the country. To have the opportunity to bounce ideas off of a track guru like Gabe is a huge blessing.

Best nugget of wisdom from Gabe: “Focus on the ride, don’t get caught looking at the horizon.” I learned from Gabe that athletes need to focus on the process, but I sometimes fail to do so myself. An athlete may have an off workout, an off day. Listen and be patient with athletes and their progress. Enjoy the experience and allow the athlete to do the same.

Ron Grigg: Pay it Forward

Ron, the director of women’s cross-country and track and field at Jacksonville University, is friendly, timely, and very open to sharing information. I attended Ron’s presentation at the CTF clinic two times because I was so intrigued by his use of so few drills, yet the athlete’s at Jacksonville have been very successful under his guidance. After viewing his “Horizontal Drills Simplified” presentation, I knew immediately that I had to share what I had learned and wrote my second article for SimpliFaster specifically based on these jumping drills.

When I cold-called Ron, he didn’t hesitate for one moment, and he answered every question I had for the article. Earlier this season on my way to my son’s tee ball game, he returned my phone call after I left a message, and we talked track and field for over forty-five minutes. Near the end of our cross-country season, I again called Ron at an agreed upon time, and we chatted for about ninety minutes going over long distance and mid-distance program design. He has returned every single email, sometimes within minutes, because as he stated, he is “simply paying it forward.”

Best nugget of wisdom from Ron: He is not an event coach, he is a track and field coach. Recently he emailed the following to me: “When we had two long jumpers at Olympic Trials, they called me a jumps coach, when we had two 800m runners at NCAAs, they called me a middle distance coach, when our 4×1 made NCAAs, they called me a sprint coach; but I just think of myself as a track and field coach. I like all events and the challenges they present with similarities and differences, and I like coaching all athletes who have similarities and differences in their physical and mental characteristics.”

Giving Back

These are the best of many nuggets of wisdom several coaches have provided me through the years. I’ve learned so many lessons from so many coaches—not just the ones I’ve listed here. Over the past few years, these fine men have truly ignited my passion for being a better coach and, more importantly, have shown how to be giving with time, think deeply, reflect candidly, enjoy the process, be kind, and pay it forward.

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

I’ll start by making a confession. I’m a head track coach and I have almost zero track and field experience.

Feels good to get that out there!

My goal in writing this is to rid any coach of excuses. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve learned. Most importantly, I’ve asked questions. I’ve become a student of the sport and I feel that I’ve given my student athletes what they need to succeed. Since so my great people have given me help, I’ve decided it is time to “pay it forward” and give credit where credit is due. Hopefully, another young or new coach will find some inspiration. The following is a list of advice that has served me well so far.

Becoming a Coach

In August 2010, I found myself in a back-to-school faculty meeting where I was asked if I was interested in the job of head coach of the boys track team. I was teaching at Madison High School (in Illinois, just across the river from St. Louis, MO), with a total student population of about 180 students (down from a peak of 700+) and around 15 faculty members, many of whom taught multiple grade levels. Madison had no football program (it was cut in the early ’90s) and just the remains of a 440-yard cinder track that looked like a lazy river after spring showers.

Basically, there was no one else interested.

I played football and participated in my high school’s powerlifting team. I loved training. I saw the connection between track and field, and football, weightlifting, power, and sprints.

My favorite high school teacher, a football and powerlifting coach, once gave me advice on coaching.

“Do you love (insert sport here)?” Yes.

“Do you love kids?” Yes.

“Then that’s all you need. Programs change all the time. Fundamentals are always the same. You’ll get more out of fundamentals, passion for the sport and a love of seeing kids making themselves better. You can learn everything else later.”

Rest in peace, Coach Welker.

So when I was offered the coaching position, I thought, Why not?

Learn From Your Mistakes

I frequently buy books and, back then, one of them was the (then) newly published book, “The 4 Hour Body” by Tim Ferriss. It was (and is) a fantastic resource, with the author exploring strange and unusual health and fitness protocols that follow a basic premise: Use the minimal effective dose.

It’s funny sharing this story. I should feel embarrassed saying I designed a track program around a mainstream gimmicky health book, but check this out: It features some basic protocols that any reader of SimpliFaster, ITCCCA (Illinois Track and Cross Country Coaches Association), and their great writers would recognize. While it’s in a different form, it shares a lot of the same concepts.

Barry Ross, deadlifts, and ASR sprinting? Check.

Forty-yard dashes? Check.

Muscle activation for the psoas and glutes? Check.

Focusing on acceleration to improve a short sprint time? Check.

Getting rid of needless static stretching and “speed drills,” and instead focusing on hip mobility? Check.

I’ve always viewed myself as someone who goes against the grain. I’m a person who has a degree in art and is also a former meathead, after all. I found the ideas in the book interesting, and I designed a program around it. I was ready to start training my athletes.

“You aren’t doing enough running.”

“You are in the weight room too much.”

“Cahokia runs hills until they puke.”

“You need to get them in shape.”

The criticism came quickly, but not from the athletes themselves. It came from the principal, from the athletic director, from other coaches and adults. (I will add that, in the future, my athletic director would support all my crazy ideas. These included speedsuits, making my own schedule, adding a full indoor schedule that included traveling 2 and 1/2 hours to Mahomet Seymour in the middle of the week, and making sure we had plenty of money for the state championship.)

I would love to tell you that I stuck to my guns, but I didn’t. I folded under the pressure. I Googled “how to train sprinters,” and immediately began Clyde Hart-style programming. The 2010/2011 season was different. There were not as many resources online as there are now, at least for free.

The team was OK. A sophomore sprinter ran 11 minutes, 14 seconds and went to State. He set the school record in the shotput, as well, with 46 feet, 5 inches.

But we ended the year injured. My 4×100 relay’s third leg pulled his hamstring the week of Sectionals. We did lots and lots of stretching, jogging (to shake it out, of course) ice, and ibuprofen to get him fixed (I’m laughing to myself as I type this). He ran 44.8 and missed qualifying by a few tenths.

Allow Your Athletes to Guide the Program

So, what changed in 2012?

I will give credit where it is due and it falls on that injured third leg… Andre Berry.

When the 2012 school year began, Andre was in my homeroom class. He lamented how the previous season had ended. You see, Andre Berry was hurt at the end of every single one of his high school seasons… two hamstrings and an ankle. He was a stud in junior high track, and he wanted that mojo back.

Andre flat-out told me, “I want to go to State my senior year in all three sprint relays with my friends.” He also told me he didn’t want to go to all those “weak” meets (our schedule had been terrible, dominated by triangles and quads). He wanted to go where the big schools ran; he wanted an off-season program.

In our area, we were surrounded by a hotbed of track talent. East St. Louis and Cahokia were immediate neighbors. So were Edwardsville, Belleville West, and Triad—perennial state contenders and champions. Teams across the Mississippi River weren’t too bad, either. Current Dallas Cowboys running back, Ezekiel Elliot, was dominating the sprints in Missouri at this time.

I looked at Andre and said what came naturally to me: “OK. Let’s do it.”

Other than one 4×100 barely making it the year before I took over and few individuals here and there, Madison hadn’t sent a decent group to State since 1992 and hadn’t qualified all three sprint relays since 1988. This wasn’t going to be a walk in the park.

As coach, I felt an immediate responsibility.

Learn From Those Who Are Already Successful

I began by looking at those “big school” schedules. What are the best meets? Just by chance, and just because I live in the Edwardsville School District, I went there first.

Wow.

Coach Chad Lakatos keeps an excellent webpage, and I used it to write down their schedule. By strange coincidence, I met Chad a month later at a neighborhood pig roast and talked to him briefly. He told me to contact him if Madison ever needed a race. He had no idea how much I would wind up bugging him. Like, a lot. I STILL contact Chad for meets and advice.

I’m sure Edwardsville knows this, but some schools can’t stand them. A coach in Madison County, who shall remain nameless, told me, “I don’t need to see Edwardsville and their eight assistant coaches jumping up and down and shouting every time they win a race.”

Well, why not? What would you want to see if you were a high school kid: Your coach jumping up and down when you bust your butt or standing with their arms crossed, lamenting all the reasons they can’t possibly compete? Because that’s one thing I noticed. Edwardsville coaches always say encouraging things and give feedback to their athletes after a race… no matter what place they come in. Heck, Edwardsville congratulates other team’s athletes and offers them feedback!

Edwardsville jump coach, Carry Bailey, passed along one of my athlete’s names to a college coach. Throws coach, Matt Martin, offered advice to Alton’s throws coach, Eric Dickerson. East St. Louis has a reputation for being distant and cocky. Yet, their former assistant coach and new head coach, Ramon Johnson, found a college for Madison’s Andre McGill to run at after high school. Previous head coach, Barry Malloyd, gave encouragement and offered Madison meets. I guess as a coach you can choose to be jealous or you can try and learn.

I should also add that Coach Willie Byrd of Cahokia Wirth-Parks Junior High gave me some fantastic advice in that terrible 2011 season. Coach Byrd’s athletes hold several all-time records in junior high track. These include Marlon Brady (50.89 in the 400m), Marquis Murray (15.15 in the 110 hurdles), 1:34.61 in the 4×200, and perhaps most mind-blowing, 3:32.59 in the 4×400. (The same group has the all-time seventh grade record and, for a brief time, held the No. 1 4×400 time in the 2013 Illinois outdoor season, running 3:23 in an early freshman-sophomore meet.)

Coach Byrd said to focus on the athletes who show up and want to be there. He asked how many athletes I had that were truly dedicated, and I responded, “Maybe six.” His reply stuck with me: “That’s all you need. Six athletes. That’s two relays and a couple of individual champions.” Ha! Just that easy, right? He acted as if six might be too many athletes. He added, “These in-season meets don’t really mean much. It’s state that matters.”

Focus on the end of the year and your championship meets. May matters; not April or March.

Train Smart

While I was looking for their schedule, it was another tab on Edwardsville’s website that caught my eye: “Speed Training.” There I saw that Edwardsville timed and ranked 40-yard dash times. They ran A LOT of 40s. It seemed like they did this the most. That, and something called “The 23-Second Drill.”

I was curious about this drill, so I began Googling. I couldn’t really find anything until I stumbled on a Let’s Run message board where somebody mentioned Tony Holler and Chris Korfist. Never heard of ‘em; back to Google. Then I found them—clinic notes from both coaches on the ITCCCA website. (On a funny note: I didn’t know for quite some time about Coach Holler’s connection to Metro East head coaches.)

Here they are, the exact documents I came across: Sprint Training 101 and Speed Development 2011. These became my Bibles.

I had one more thing that concerned me: Andre Berry and his injury-prone ankle and hamstring. After looking at rehab procedures online, it seemed that both problems are usually caused by weak, inactive glutes and a lack of mobility in the hips. Interesting.

Since I was the only coach, I decided that I would train ALL my athletes like they had hamstring and ankle problems.

So, we made use of Madison’s ancient Universal Gym. We did single-leg kickbacks on the leg press and one-leg deadlifts on the bench press station. We did kettlebell swings and one-leg squats. And we did tons of hip mobility drills.

Armed with my printouts of “Sprint Training 101” and “Speed Development 2011,” we headed to the long downstairs hallway and began running 40s all winter. When the temperature was above 48 degrees, we went outside and did 23s. It was like a random “wild card” workout. I also added drills from NFL Combine guru Joe DeFranco’s “Top 9 Drills to Improve Acceleration Technique.” I ranked times and jumps and posted them on my classroom door. Kids made bets and talked trash. They recruited each other.

Promote Your Team

I set up a Twitter account. We finalized a better schedule and ordered fresh new uniforms. Our schedule looked like we were in Class 3A and part of the dominant Southwestern Conference.

At the Southwestern Illinois Relays held in March, Madison was ready for our coming out. We were the only Class A school competing, and we finished sixth in the 4×100 (44.36) and fourth in the 4×200 (1:32.47). Not bad at all. Our sprinters were fourth and eighth in the 100m. Our high jumper hit 6’4” and finished third. The newspaper headline in the local journal read, “Madison emerges as Class 1A threat.” The kids were stoked.

A few weeks later, we were at Edwardsville’s invitational and I met Tony Holler for the first time. He walked up and told me Madison had some great times and that he was looking forward to seeing us run. What power Twitter can have! Here was a coach from a large Chicago team telling me that he was looking forward to seeing our team—athletes from a small school no one has ever heard of—compete! He told me I could contact him anytime. I’m sure he was just being nice and pleasant, but I took him up on that. I’ve bugged the hell out of the poor guy. Like, a lot.

A few days later, Madison won the Madison County Small Schools Championship. Not only did we beat the other small schools, but we beat many large school teams as well. Times were dropping. I posted one of my favorite pictures on Twitter that night, of the team gathered around the revolving team plaque for county champions.

So how did the year end? We ran 43.67 and 1:31.95 to qualify for State. The 4×400? Our anchor quickly coughed up a lead and then came roaring back in the final 30 meters. It was the first time since 1988 that Madison sent all three sprint relays to State. Andre Berry ran on all three relays, and we were county champions. A healthy and happy Andre Berry got his senior wish… a trip out of town to State to compete with his friends.

Keep Moving Forward

This advice might sound simple. However, after that great 2012 season, the core of the team graduated. With 180 students, it can be challenging to “reload.” I heard it all year long. I still had my 11.1 sprinter, but few people around the school had hope for the team.

Except for me and my athletes.

How did we respond? Well, I kept learning and asking questions. I went to clinics. I networked with other coaches. My athletes worked both hard and smart. I’d recruit anyone in the halls: “I will find an event for you that you are good at.” While I didn’t make promises, I would claim, “I can’t guarantee you’ll be ‘fast’, but I will make you faster.”

The 2013 team repeated as county champions and we were actually faster than 2012, going 43.60, 1:30.82, and 3:30.67. In 2014, the team was the fastest I had ever coached and they made the most noise at State. The following year, Andre McGill become a state champion and drew interest from Illinois.

I truly believe that when you have a fun program that the kids enjoy, the recruiting takes care of itself. We had no booster club, so I bought a Freelap Timing System with my own money. Timing and ranking your athletes allows you to place them in events where they’ll be successful. They’ll see small but measurable progress. And when your athletes are happy, feel good, and feel fast, magic happens.

I don’t write this to brag about myself. I still consider myself a novice coach. If anything, I write this to brag about my athletes and their accomplishments. Even with my inexperience, a lack of facilities, no assistant coaches, no booster club, and a small school size… they were able to succeed. If I can do it, anyone can! If you want to have a great track program, I am proof that it is obtainable.

I had a choice after that first disastrous season. I could collect a stipend and coast by on raw talent or I could do right by my athletes and students. I’m still amazed that many track coaches seem to not know what “Google” or “Twitter” are. You can be that grumpy coach that complains about Edwardsville and Cahokia. Or you can ask questions and learn from the best you can find. Remember, you always have a choice over the kind of coach you want to be.

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

Resisted sled sprint (RSS) training is an effective method to improve linear sprint performance – but how do we load the sled?

This article will provide an overview of the current methods of sled load prescription for resisted sled sprint (RSS) training. We are at a very early stage of quantifying the potential of RSS training for improved sprint performance. However, before we can effectively apply RSS training with our athletes, we have to understand why and how we are loading the sled.

The Benefits of Resisted Sled Sprint (RSS) Training

Physical training improvements in sprint performance can occur via two general means:

1. Increase in physical output
   • e.g. increase production of triple extension force/power
2. Improvement in efficiency of physical output
   • e.g. increase in horizontal application of force

Sprint acceleration performance is largely determined by the angle of application of ground reaction force [1-3]. JB Morin and colleagues summarize the mechanical determinants of sprint acceleration as a ‘technical ability to apply horizontal force’ (Figure 1) [2]. RSS training is a tool to provide a potential improvement in horizontal application of force.

We constantly strive for effective and efficient methods for training transfer to performance. For an overview of ‘training transfer’, please read this top quality piece by Warren Young [4]. RSS training is likely to provide an enhancement of both physical output and efficiency of physical output .

Adding a resistive load provides an overload of the force component [5, 6]. RSS training acutely provides the athlete with less braking forces, [7-9] longer opportunity for greater forward trunk lean and, therefore, a better chance for horizontal application of force [7, 10-13]. Although athletes spend longer on the ground when sled sprinting, this provides more time to develop their ability to produce propulsive (or horizontal) forces [9, 10]

A recent review found 10 from 11 peer-reviewed studies observed RSS training improvements in either acceleration or maximal velocity sprint performance [14]. In sprint and strength-trained rugby players, 12 sessions of 3×20 m of RSS at a 12.6%BM sled load combined with 3×20 m of URS was enough to provide improvements in speed performance beyond 6×20 m of URS training alone [15]. The review also discounted the ‘heavy sleds make you slow’ myth. Sled loads from 12-43%BM were effective in the improvement of sprint performance.

Although RSS training is an effective method for improvements in sprint performance, the review deemed it unlikely to be more effective than unresisted sprint (URS) training [14]. However, many of the studies kept sled load rather light. Part 2 of this article will discuss RSS load and the potential adaptations from different loads. Secondly, RSS training may provide different neuromuscular and biomechanical adaptations to URS training alone.

Slow Down

But…we have a problem. We do not even have a grasp on the absolute fundamentals of resisted sprint training. We’re not even sure how to load the sled.

Our current situation reminds me of NASA’s Mars Polar Lander of which crashed as two separate teams were antagonistically working in imperial and metric units (I’m certainly not comparing sport science to rocket science – we’re obviously a lot smarter with our finances). Authors have utilized three different methods of sled load prescription used in peer-reviewed training studies. This is a problem. Without a uniform and agreed method of sled load prescription, we cannot begin to accurately discuss RSS volumes, intensities and training adaptations.

Absolutely Relative

Table 1 outlines the current and proposed methods of sled load prescription.

I do not prescribe an absolute load (e.g. 10kg) or a load relative to athlete body mass (%BM). I would not ask a squad of 15 rugby players to each back squat 100kg, or hang clean 50% of their bodyweight. Why generalize these methods to RSS training? Body mass is rarely a determinant of sprint performance. Furthermore, RSS performance is related to individual force, power and sprint characteristics [16]. RSS programs prescribed with either absolute or %BM methods mean the coach is providing a non-uniform or unknown training stimulus among athletes (Figure 2). Alternative approaches are required.

Alternative loading strategies must account for an athlete’s resisted sprint velocity or acceleration ability. Table 1 outlines the benefits and limitations of two alternative resisted sprint loading methods: %V_dec (decrement in unresisted sprint velocity) and %MRSL (maximal resisted sprint load).

Measurement of %V_dec is simple (Table 2) and application of this method has been used in various training studies [11, 17-21]. This method has much potential for use in applied settings. It accounts for both unresisted and resisted sprint velocity. Therefore, %V_dec accounts for the technical demands of resisted sprinting (e.g. greater trunk angle, changes in force production, changes in force application).

MRSL was originally developed by Martinez-Valencia, Pedro Alcaraz and their research group [16]. MRSL is somewhat of a misnomer. MRSL does not indicate the heaviest load before an athlete can physically move the sled. In this respect, it is not analogous to a traditional one repetition maximum (1RM).

The MRSL method is illustrated in Table 3 and Figure 3. Simply, MRSL is the “maximal load at which the athlete remains in sprint acceleration from 10 to 20 m in a 0-20 m resisted sled sprint”. For lovers of diagrams, Figure 4 further illustrates the description of MRSL. As we increase sled load, the rate of acceleration between 10 and 20m decreases. Eventually, sled load increases to the point where the athlete is decelerating, i.e. we have trialed beyond the maximal load to maintain acceleration.

Although not identical, the idea of MRSL is not too far removed from the 1RM method of standard weight-lifting loading protocols. The MRSL test provides the practitioner with a single value. This value can act as a ‘maximal load’. Based on a ‘maximal load’, RSS loads can be programmed and based on the adaptation required by the practitioner. Part 2 of this article will expand on RSS programming using the MRSL method.

In-house research at UCD High Performance has shown MRSL to be a reliable method that significantly correlates with performance tests such as 0-10 m speed, 0-20 m speed, vertical and horizontal countermovement jump, horizontal bounding and loaded jump squats. Therefore, the test is certainly superior to the %BM or absolute load methods. MRSL loads were measured at between 22-50%BM for females and 30-65%BM for males. The top-end numbers are quite heavy, yes.

Figures 5-1 through 5-5 illustrate how heavier sleds induce greater forward trunk lean and, therefore, increase the likelihood of greater horizontal force application.

Provided the athlete is accelerating, the trunk lean during a resisted sprint will be specific to, or greater than, the trunk lean at a certain portion of URS acceleration, i.e. trunk lean over 20 m at 100%MRSL and that of very early URS acceleration. Therefore, training with loads close to MRSL may provide the athlete with increased exposure/ practice at the trunk angle experienced in early acceleration. More practice = a greater chance of developing a more favorable motor pattern or positive change in acceleration technique that enhances greater horizontal force application.

The practical application of MRSL will be discussed in Part 2 of this article.

Summary

• RSS training is an effect tool for improvements in sprint performance. Adaptations are likely related to improved horizontal application of force. However, we are yet unsure of how to prescribe sled load.
• Absolute or % BM sled load prescription methods do not account for sprint or acceleration performance. It is unlikely these methods provide a uniform stimulus between athletes.
• The %V_dec is a simple and relative method of resisted sled load prescription. This method accounts for between-athlete differences in sprint performance and resisted sled sprint mechanics. However, this method does not inform the coach of a ‘maximal’ load or a measure of acceleration quality.
• The MRSL method is superior in terms of providing an understanding of the relationship between sled load and the trunk angles obtained during specific URS phases.

Pinch of Salt

This piece of work is established from a combination of research evidence, opinion and most importantly, training/ coaching experience. I still have much to discover, and I invite critique, questions, and discussion. There will be many out there who have alternative opinions and experiences; please share.

All papers mentioned in this article can be found here.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Dr Brendan Egan, Dr Eamonn Flanagan and Stuart McMillan for their excellent comments in the revision of this article.

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

References

1. Morin JB, Bourdin M, Edouard P et al. Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112(11):3921-30.
2. Morin JB, Edouard P, Samozino P. Technical ability of force application as a determinant factor of sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(9):1680-8.
3. Rabita G, Dorel S, Slawinski J et al. Sprint mechanics in world-class athletes: a new insight into the limits of human locomotion. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015.
4. Young WB. Transfer of strength and power training to sports performance. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2006;1(2):74-83.
5. Cottle CA, Carlson LA, Lawrence MA. Effects of sled towing on sprint starts. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(5):1241-5.
6. Martínez-Valencia MA, Romero-Arenas S, Elvira JL et al. Effects of Sled Towing on Peak Force, the Rate of Force Development and Sprint Performance During the Acceleration Phase. J Hum Kinet. 2015;46(1):139-48.
7. Cronin J, Hansen K, Kawamori N et al. Effects of weighted vests and sled towing on sprint kinematics. Sport Biomech. 2008;7(2):160-72.
8. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Spinks CD. Effects of resisted sled towing on sprint kinematics in field-sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(4):760-7.
9. Nogueira M, Viriato N, Vaz M et al., editors. Dynamometric analysis of resisted sled on sprint run. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive; 2011.
10. Kawamori N, Newton R, Nosaka K. Effects of weighted sled towing on ground reaction force during the acceleration phase of sprint running. J Sports Sci 2014;32(12):1139-45.
11. Kawamori N, Newton RU, Hori N et al. Effects of weighted sled towing with heavy versus light load on sprint acceleration ability. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(10):2738-45.
12. Alcaraz PE, Palao JM, Elvira JL et al. Effects of three types of resisted sprint training devices on the kinematics of sprinting at maximum velocity. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(3):890-7.
13. Maulder PS, Bradshaw EJ, Keogh JW. Kinematic alterations due to different loading schemes in early acceleration sprint performance from starting blocks. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(6):1992-2002.
14. Petrakos G, Morin JB, Egan B. Resisted sled sprint training to improve sprint performance: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2015.
15. West DJ, Cunningham DJ, Bracken RM et al. Effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration in professional rugby union players. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(4):1014-8.
16. Martinez-Valencia MA, Gonzalez-Rave JM, Santos-Garcia DJ et al. Interrelationships between different loads in resisted sprints, half-squat 1 RM and kinematic variables in trained athletes. Eur J Sport Sci. 2014;14 Suppl 1:S18-24.
17. Alcaraz PE, Elvira JLL, Palao JM. Kinematic, strength, and stiffness adaptations after a short- term sled towing training in athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;24(2):279-90.
18. Clark KP, Stearne DJ, Walts CT et al. The longitudinal effects of resisted sprint training using weighted sleds vs. weighted vests. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3287-95.
19. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Schultz AB et al. The effects of different speed training protocols on sprint acceleration kinematics and muscle strength and power in field sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(6):1539-50.
20. Makaruk B, Sozanski H, Makaruk H et al. The effects of resisted sprint training on speed performance in women. Hum Mov. 2013;14(2):116-22.
21. Spinks CD, Murphy AJ, Spinks WL et al. The effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration performance and kinematics in soccer, rugby union, and Australian football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(1):77-85.

Technology has become mainstream in all aspects of our daily lives and has slowly infiltrated the sport scene with decades of improvements. Considering all the tools available to chalk up our athletic lives to a bunch of quantitative data, I’d like to think I’ve kept it pretty simple. I operate with a GPS watch and a heart rate monitor. The heart rate monitor is a relatively new addition to my arsenal.

I log everything, religiously, so when I’m running 70, 80, and 90 miles a week, I can see how I’m trending, for worse or for better. I have two sensors on my bike, but unlike most of my high-tech competitors, I don’t own a cycling computer and often just strap my watch around my handlebars in a true, jimmy-rigged fashion. Nevertheless, I value the numbers as much as the next person. Here is how I have found this technology to be useful.

GPS and Pacing Feedback: Distance Running

One of the greatest factors separating experienced runners from the novice is the ability to pace accurately and consistently for an entire interval or workout. For well-trained runners, this becomes an almost innate, subconscious ability and often can be executed precisely by “feel.”

The sustained pace in long distance races is closely associated with a runner’s lactate threshold. At just a few seconds per mile above the lactate threshold, lactate and hydrogen ions begin to accumulate in the muscles, and without enough oxygen to support their clearance, a buildup ensues and fatigue is inevitable.

Race pace is often just below the lactate threshold for distances at or above a 5K, and training to improve this threshold becomes an integral part of program design. Training at lactate paces, just below the threshold zone, is the best way to improve the body’s ability to clear lactate from the muscles. This is a trainable aspect of an athlete’s physiology which is directly related to performance.

In other words, improved lactate clearance at a given running speed enables the runner to withstand a faster pace for the entire race. The threshold can be pushed higher and higher with progressive training, unlike VO2 max which has a harder ceiling based on predefined genetic factors.

So how does GPS come into play? Using a GPS watch as an inanimate pacer can truly be a game-changer in a runner’s ability to acquire an intuitive pacing ability. While this skill comes only from experience, the tool can greatly speed up the process of mastering internal pacing. GPS watches gives real-time pace, average run pace, and interval/lap pace options, so the data gives live feedback on how consistent a runner performs over the miles.

A study by Smith, Moran, and Foley (2013)² tested the benefit of GPS feedback on lactate threshold pacing in first-year collegiate distance runners. Researchers split the participants into an intervention group (using GPS devices) and a control group (no GPS devices) for a three-week lactate training experiment. Before the study started, researchers determined the threshold pace for each athlete with a fixed time-trial. None of the participants had previous experience with a GPS watch.

In the GPS group, the device significantly improved pacing in just three sessions. The study suggested that less experienced runners may benefit even more than more advanced runners due to an inverse relationship between improvements in pacing and the athlete’s experience level.

GPS as a Gauge for Overtraining

Overuse injuries from running are often caused by excessive progression in weekly volume or an overload of intensity. A study by Nielsen et al. (2013)¹ examined the use of GPS technology to determine whether training volume led to harmful effects on recovery and adaptation. In the study’s follow-up, thirteen of sixty runners who sustained injuries had performed a significantly higher training volume (31.6%) the week before their injury occurred, compared to a 22.1% increase in healthy participants. Researchers concluded that increasing weekly training above 30% significantly increased the risk of developing running related injuries.

The gold standard 10% rule is the currently accepted guideline for increasing training volume in a progressive yet safe manner. Although experienced athletes may tolerate a more aggressive increase if they’ve established a solid fitness base, GPS technology still serves as a quantitative monitor to detect indications of overtraining. I will elaborate more on heart rate technology later in the article.

GPS and Biomechanics: Swimming

Several GPS watches now have a multisport function which can track sport-specific parameters across multiple disciplines. I use a Garmin Forerunner 920XT in my training. The swim, bike, and run analytics have helped me fine tune my triathlon training to target specific biomechanical and economic issues that would be otherwise difficult to note as a self-coached athlete.

The swim metrics include distance, pace, stroke type identification, average and max stroke count per minute, average strokes per length, drill logging, and rest timers. When I’m specifically working on stroke cadence in the pool, I can use the stroke count features to monitor my efficiency. Triathletes often have a shorter, choppier swim stroke to account for the variability and unpredictability of the open water swim. Increasing stroke count per length in the pool, while maintaining speed, is important to monitor for improvements in stroke efficiency. The watch’s accelerometer tracks swim metrics when indoors, and the GPS capability is activated when swimming in open water.

GPS and Biomechanics: Cycling

On the bike, the 920XT measures average speed, maximum speed, distance, and elevation change. I can add compatible sensors to the bike for speed, cadence, and heart rate to provide advanced training data for cycling workouts.

Cadence has been especially important for me on the bike since I learn to develop leg power while still pushing high revolutions per minute. This also makes it easier when it’s time to train for intervals involving high-gear/low-cadence bouts alternated with low-gear/high-cadence bouts. The speed sensor is a bit redundant outdoors with the watch’s built-in GPS. But when winter calls to break out the indoor trainer, the speed sensor lets you know how you match up to your outdoor pacing while staying warm inside.

One compatible feature that I have not tapped into yet, for financial reasons, is the power meter. This is gradually becoming the gold standard for measuring cycling adaptation and leg power development. The higher power wattage you can push and pull at the same cadence/speed, the stronger you are as a cyclist.

The 920XT can display power metrics when paired with ANT+® power meters, including the Vector™ line of single- and dual-sensing pedal options. If you train with heart rate and a power meter, the 920XT can determine your estimatedVO2 max to help monitor changes in your fitness. The color gauge on the watch even shows how you rank against other athletes in your age group.

GPS and Biomechanics: Running

Aside from the basics of pace, time, and distance, the running dynamics include cadence, vertical oscillation, stride length, ground contact time, and more. A cadence of at least 180 steps per minute combined with optimal stride length correlates to faster race performances.
When I become fatigued late in a training run or race, I often shorten my stride and increase my cadence to overcome the over-striding and form breakdown which often accompany fatigue. The watch also features a built-in metronome (vibration or auditory) if cadence is something you or your athletes struggle with intuitively.

Vertical oscillation is the measure of the amount of “bounce” in each step. Too much bounce is wasteful of energy. Too little bounce often means the full backward extension of the hips is shortchanged, making the stride choppier and less cyclical. The amount of ground contact time can be a major differentiating factor between elite and sub-elite runners. When a runner spends less time on the ground with each foot contact, more energy returns to the legs for turnover rather than dissipating with a slow inefficiency.

The ground contact time feature (in conjunction with cadence) has been a game-changer for me. I have noticeably slower contact times when my body has not fully recovered from a previous workout, and cadence often lags behind the 180-steps per minute mark. My best race performances always follow optimal ground contact times when my legs are rested and primed for responsiveness.

Garmin has released a new feature that shows the ground contact time balance between the left and right legs. As a coach, I’ve found that most beginner and some advanced but less economical runners slightly favor one leg over the other. This may be due to a muscular (hip/glute) imbalance, leg length discrepancy, or compensation from an injury.

This feature helped me tremendously when coming off an acute ankle sprain after trail running. I had a significant imbalance between my healthy left foot and injured right foot contact times (54%/46%, respectively). As I healed, I saw that I favored my right foot less and less every day, and my numbers slowly regained equal balance at 50%/50%.

This is an invaluable tool for coaches and athletes to monitor changes in compensatory mechanisms which reveal inefficiencies otherwise unrecognizable without video analysis. These advanced run metrics are only measured when wearing the compatible HRM-Run™ chest strap. In my case, I use the HRM-Tri™ monitor and wear it in all three sport disciplines.

Heart Rate Training

I’ve grown to appreciate training with a heart rate monitor over the last year. While I do not design my training programs based on specific heart rate zones/intensities, I do check my heart rate during and after every workout to monitor my recovery status. Within the first few minutes of the run, my watch indicates my recovery status, either “Good” or “Fair.”

If my heart rate is higher than 145bpm on an easy run, I know my body has not recovered from my previous workout. Between intervals on the track, I can watch my heart rate fall back to a recovery zone and know I’m clearing lactate well and ready to go for the next bout.
Earlier in a training cycle, I often see my recovery time is not as efficient, especially with a short rest, but I can monitor my progress as the season goes on. If I see my heart rate climb and my breathing labor even at a slow pace on a trail run, I often check the altitude reading on the watch. “Oh, you just climbed 1,000-feet over the last mile and a half?” Well, that explains it.

After a workout, the watch recommends a recovery time before I should attempt my next hard day. As an aspiring elite athlete, I take this particular piece of information lightly, since we often need to take advantage of overloading the system to gain the benefits of super compensation on true recovery days. Often I accumulate my stress on two or three back-to-back hard days and take several recovery days before repeating the process.

Technology and Intuition

This article isn’t meant to be a plug for Garmin or this particular watch. There are many models available which have similar features and are just as beneficial. As an athlete, I’m grateful for the advances in technology which have helped me take my running and triathlon game to the next level. I’m excited to see where the wearable tech takes us in the next decade, and how it can further revolutionize the science of training.

With that said, I can’t stress enough the importance of not relying on external technology to become innately in-tune with your sport. There is something to be said for disconnecting from all forms of external feedback and data to simply feel the body working in its most natural way. I encourage my athletes (and myself) to perform most initial base conditioning runs, and often recovery runs, without the watch to become more aware of how their body feels and responds to the miles. This will make you a better, more intuitive athlete as much as, if not more than, the number-crunching game.

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

References

1. Nielsen, R. O., P. Cederholm, I. Buist, H. Sørensen, M. Lind, and S. Rasmussen (2013). “Can GPS be Used to Detect Deleterious Progression in Training Volume Among Runners?” Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(6), 1471-1478.
2. Smith, J. W., M.F. Moran, and J.T. Foley (2013). “Effect of GPS Feedback on Lactate Threshold Pacing in Intercollegiate Distance Runners.” International Journal of Exercise Science, 6(1), 74-80.

For us dwellers of the frozen north, the idea of putting together a warm-weather training camp sounds like a wonderful fantasy that only well-funded athletes or big schools can pull off. Well, not so fast! I’m a volunteer track and field coach with zero funding, and my training group had two warm-weather camps this season that totaled 24 days.

I know what you’re thinking: “I can’t take my athletes anywhere!” or “I don’t coach track!” With a little creativity, you can use these seven principles, no matter what sport you coach and whether you can travel or not, to benefit your group.

I’m no genius—these ideas are not all my own. I gained much inspiration from “The Jane Project,” an awesome video from the CharlieFrancis.com library. Charlie’s prescription is deceptively simple:

• Ruthlessly eliminate stress from the athlete’s life.
• Figure out what’s important for each athlete. Prioritize it.
• Be holistic in your approach. Set your athletes up for success!

Since I’m an elementary school physical education teacher by day, I hold my camps either during our two-week Christmas vacation or spring break. Over the past four seasons, we have held camps in three different locations.

While Austin, Texas is a vibrant and dynamic city, the weather there is simply too variable in the winter, and my spring break occurs during the South by Southwest music festival, so that’s a no-go. Nassau, Bahamas has much more reliable weather, but the high cost of transportation, lodging, and food is enough to offset the awesome training vibe at old Thomas Robinson Stadium. So island weather with mainland conveniences is the ideal training scenario. Does such a place exist? Why, in Florida of course!

My hands-down favorite place for a camp is the National Training Center in Clermont, Florida. The weather is consistently lovely, and Orlando Airport is just 40 minutes away. Cristy Snellgroves and Lance Brauman at PURE Athletics are experts at hosting visiting teams. They have everything you need (from sleds and plyo boxes to massage tables) so you can leave your bag of tricks at home.

Over the years, I’ve made loads of mistakes in my training camps. Slowly but surely by trial and (lots of) error, I have settled on seven guiding principles for hosting a kickass camp.

BE A CONTROL FREAK: Minimize athlete decision-making and schedule sleep, meals, and supplementation

When you have the chance to control an athlete’s life, just do it!

It’s amazing how little resistance I encountered in implementing a simple but structured daily schedule. Young athletes welcome the opportunity to power down their brains and allow me to do most of the thinking. Understanding “decision fatigue” is useful here. Every decision we make during the day drains us. From the moment we wake up, we have to decide what to wear, what to eat, whom to talk to—and the list goes on. Creating a clear daily structure with fewer options, yet ample free time can be very helpful.

At camp, athletes know they are waking up at 9AM, drinking filtered ice water, and eating a healthy homemade organic breakfast that usually consists of a green smoothie, grass-fed meat, eggs, beans, avocado, potatoes, and steel-cut oats. Light lunch is at 12:30, training at 3 PM, and dinner at 7 PM. They know that 11 PM means their screens (tablet, phone, etc.) are off and out of their rooms. If they want to continue reading, it’s an old-fashioned book with actual pages.

When you cut the number of daily decisions athletes must make so they largely know what to expect, it is amazing how much mentally fresher they become. This is why I stress workout quality, not quantity, during training camps. Mental focus in workouts is easier to achieve and can be maintained longer. A sensibly structured day reduces stimulation and allows for a more positive mental outlook.

STOP OUTSOURCING: Eliminate eating out and teach your captive audience how to shop for, plan, and cook simple, healthy meals

I have near-zero tolerance for eating out at camp. Not only is it super expensive, but it’s also ridiculously stressful. By the time you load the car, drive to a restaurant, wait for a table, and pick an entrée, you’re at least one hour in and twelve decisions deep, and you’re spending at least three times more than what it would cost to cook even the finest-quality meal at home. At our Christmas camp in Florida, we split our six people into teams of two. Each team was responsible for one meal per day, which we rotated between breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

A helpful assist is having a few good appliances. I brought my Vitamix 5200 (though the inexpensive Ninja also works well) to handle smoothie duties and simple soups. I also brought my Panasonic MS-183 rice cooker, which is amazing for cooking steel-cut oatmeal. You mix the ingredients the night before, set the timer, and have your oatmeal ready at your scheduled meal time. Oh, and it also cooks perfect rice—not bad for $99. Last but not least, the Lodge cast-iron skillet was the appliance MVP. It is cheap, ultra-sturdy, and can cook almost anything.

Creating a basic template is the key to low-stress meal preparation. Our meals had a similar daily structure, with lunch the lightest portion-wise. It featured lots of salad greens, as well as easily digestible foods such as chicken, locally grown fruit, and a mix of rice and legumes (rice with black beans, pigeon peas, or garbanzo beans). Dinner was the largest meal, with lighter proteins like quality fish or chicken, steamed greens, a starch such as sweet potato, and simple oven-roasted root vegetables.

Since I laid out a simple structure, the prep squad could focus on improving its cooking technique and timing the meals without having to worry about being creative. Pick a protein, a starch, and some vegetables and you’re ready to go. We always bought whole chickens and cooked them in cast iron. The athletes were all skilled at our chicken-cooking process (cut chicken into quarters, quickly sear on the stovetop to crisp the skin, and finish by baking in the oven) by the end of camp.

CUT THE CRAP and achieve your ideal diet: Focus on gluten-free, dairy-free, whole-food, low-sugar, local organic meals

A central assumption of Western culture is “technology makes life better.” This is ridiculous. Yes, technology profoundly impacts your life, but there is nothing inherently better about it, especially when it comes to food. I can’t count the number of athletes who have no problem spending money on exotic protein powders or BCAAs, yet ask them to spend an extra $2 on organic greens and they balk!

Eating real food is decidedly low-tech and a critical focus of every camp. Inspired by a chat with long jumper Christabel Nettey of WAC, who went gluten-free and saw her weight drop and her performances improve, my top athlete had been gradually weaning himself off gluten, dairy, and refined sugar. We banned them at our camp.

Truthfully, the first day there was some grumbling, especially when I snatched a box of granola bars from an athlete’s grip and told him “nope.” This low-level discontent continued for about 72 hours until cravings for simple carbohydrates subsided along with the talk of mutiny. At a training camp, your athletes are stuck with you. Use it as a huge teaching opportunity. You have a captive audience of people who want to improve. Force them slightly outside their comfort zone. They will adjust.

To eat truly healthy, shop as locally as possible. Athletes joined me at the Clermont Farmers Market to meet local growers and select the best options for the money. We met Don Huntington of Rent-A-Hen, whose eggs are raised on his small farm. We scooped up six dozen, and they were so wildly popular that we plowed through all 72 in three days. I had to pick up a couple dozen organic eggs at the grocery store to tide us over until the next market. Guess what? Organic or not, they couldn’t come close to matching the freshness and quality of Don’s eggs. They stayed in the fridge.

Grocery stores should be only a secondary option. Any product that makes it into a grocery store is by definition compromised. As a supplier, by opting to rent shelf space, you are committing yourself to provide stock 100% of the time. Your focus can no longer be on ultimate quality; instead it’s on keeping the shelf full. This is how you get “cage-free organic eggs” that come from a coop of 20,000 chickens, and “organic strawberries” that taste like styrofoam. Do not kid yourself; your chances of scoring nutritious food at a good farmers market are exponentially greater. You may not get exactly what you want, but you will get what you need—freshness and quality.

SMASH STRESS by reducing stimulation: Find a quiet living space and trim travel time by training nearby

Another major theme of my camps is the wholesale reduction of stimulation. Put simply, there are two branches of the nervous system: sympathetic (fight or flight) and parasympathetic (rest and digest). The average urban athlete is bombarded by instant messages and personal interactions from morning to night. Training camp should be a welcome break from family, lovers, traffic, and the generalized fight-or-flight-inducing stress of living in an urban environment. Putting athletes in a parasympathetic state of relaxation leads to some great training performances.

By far the easiest way to accomplish this is staying in a small town in a quiet property tucked away from noise. With the plethora of booking options like Airbnb, finding such a place is easier than ever. For our last camp, we scored a lakefront home with huge front windows just outside of sleepy Clermont. Just looking outside created a sense of serenity. Friendly locals regularly came by to chat and fish off our dock.

While it’s important to have a comfortable and relaxing place to stay, countless teams totally blow this advantage by commuting too far to their training facility. To truly minimize stress, you must slash travel times to the bone. Figure out where you’re going to train, and stay within eight miles. The ultimate goal of my camps is quality over quantity, and this is nearly impossible if you’re draining athletes with ridiculous commutes! One team in Florida at the same time as us had an insane daily routine:

• Drive 30 miles to the track from chaotic Orlando at 7 AM. Train.
• Drive 30 miles back to Orlando for a shower and restaurant lunch.
• Repeat the same annoying commute for the afternoon training session.

Athletes sat in a van for over two hours per day AND trained twice! How are they supposed to run fast if their day is a jumble of commuting, showering, and dining out? Training camp should be a mental break from the grind of daily life. Commuting is stressful, so plan NOT to do it at camp!

Modern society has us constantly communicating with a wide variety of people, both in person and via handheld devices. An away training camp means “out of sight, out of mind.” Family and friends from home tend to bother athletes less when they’re away, which allows them to decompress. During our last camp, we were so rural that cellular service was very spotty, and our house WiFi even ended up failing.

Guess what? It was awesome! Stress levels plummeted. We read books, shared stories, and constantly laughed. We occasionally went to the coffee shop when we needed WiFi, which was surprisingly rare. As an added bonus to the lack of WiFi, sleep routines were far easier to keep. Athletes went to bed earlier with less resistance from glowing white screens. I’m not saying this is an easy trick to pull off, but the accidental results were very positive.

LEGALIZE GRASS: barefoot grass aerobic tempo work is lower impact, increases general fitness over time, and electrically grounds athletes

I gave an example of a team that used training camp as an opportunity to hammer their athletes with excessive work. Carl Valle once told me he likes to structure his camps with one high-intensity day followed by two low-intensity days. It stuck with me, and I continue to follow this formula because it works. On our quality day, athletes go for it—they are focused, intense, and look forward to running fast. The next day, we focus on recovering from the stress of running fast. We do absolutely everything we can actively and passively to speed the return to a parasympathetic state of relaxation.

I am a big believer in Charlie Francis-style extensive tempo sessions (which contrasts with many coaches here who seem to avoid aerobic work), especially at the time of year when athletes crank out some impressive times. As Charlie would say, “Speed is anti-circulatory; tempo is circulatory.” Using heart rate variability (HRV) for the past few years has proved to me that aerobic work speeds recovery, and over time increases general fitness. One athlete I coach managed to drop his resting heart rate from the low 60s to the low 40s over a three-year period, and I have the daily HRV data to prove it (but hey, that’s a separate article).

Nearby Hancock Park is a wonderland of pool-table-flat grass. We checked the ground carefully for unevenness and sharp objects and got to work. Amazingly, athletes looked forward to these often-dreary sessions! Some research even suggests the restorative power of grounding yourself electrically. In the best case scenario, it helps recovery. Worst case is it doesn’t hurt, so why not give it a try?

RECOVER RAPIDLY by maximizing low-cost regenerative tools: Pool work, hot and cold showers, Epsom salt baths, self-therapy, and massage

Sometimes our first recovery day would be a morning session. It consisted of a quarter-mile walk to the saltwater pool (hardly a commute!) for an upper-body mobility circuit followed by a plank circuit. Afterward, an easy swim warmup, then perhaps 6-8×45 seconds of easy pool running with 15 seconds recovery to increase circulation while unloading joints from the previous day’s work.

Athletes would relax in the pool for 15-45 minutes afterward, as simply sitting in a pool has a plethora of potential benefits. The hydrostatic pressure creates a recovery effect similar to compression garments. Another useful benefit is increasing metabolic rate. At our winter camp, we were joined by Melissa, a 400 hurdler from the west coast who was coming off an injury. The combination of excellent diet and averaging 75 minutes per day in the pool were key factors in her dropping 10 pounds in nine days. While it sounds like BS, anyone familiar with the work of Ray Cronise won’t be so doubtful.

Aerobic tempo workouts occurred after lunch; athletes had great blood flow, and it was the perfect time for a contrast shower. We use Waldemar Matuszewski’s protocol of 3 minutes as hot as you can stand, followed by 1 minute as cold as tolerable, repeated three times and ending on cold. Tap water doesn’t get very cold in Florida, so the effectiveness is somewhat compromised, but it’s still helpful. Muscle tone relaxes and reduces the amount of soft-tissue intervention needed.

For athletes who recover slowly or get very sore, an Epsom salt bath followed by a hot and cold shower can be very useful. Newbies to Epsom salt may find their muscles becoming temporarily very loose and unreactive, so make sure you aren’t expecting them to run fast the following day.

Kelly Starrett of MobilityWOD.com has put together some great resources that teach athletes how to perform self-therapy. His book Becoming a Supple Leopard is also excellent. Teaching athletes some of these techniques increases their ability to self-manage, and also reduces the amount of massage work required from the coach or team therapist. Athletes must complete all their self-therapy prescriptions before getting a massage from me. This shows that they are serious and that they respect my time. For those who are afraid to start massaging—just start. It’s not rocket science!

Build the first six strategies around your KEY TRAINING SESSIONS

So far I’ve talked about everything but actual training sessions. You’re probably wondering, “When is this guy gonna get to the meat and potatoes and talk about the workouts?” Let’s be honest here—coaches love writing workouts. I know what my moneymaker sessions are, and so do you. I also know that preparing athletes properly leading into a key workout can be the difference between a good workout and a spectacular breakthrough performance. Getting the first six elements of a successful camp right requires careful planning. Scheduling your workouts is easy, so spend most of your time thinking about what will go on before, after, and in between key workout sessions.

As a coach running a training camp, you are conducting a symphony of interrelated components. Simply penciling in workouts and hoping for the best may still get you positive results. But if you plan carefully and think holistically, your athletes’ performances may shock you—and them!

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

Developing elite horizontal jumpers is not easy. Managing the physiological, psychological, technical, and tactical requirements needed for success is a long-term holistic process.

This article is the first of a series laying out my ever-evolving blueprint for working with horizontal jumpers. It offers an overview of my recommendations as coaches and athletes plan their training program. The remaining articles will discuss these components in greater detail and begin building the comprehensive program.

Recommendations for Long-Term Planning

I approach programming from the perspective of broad to narrow. Understanding big-picture principles provides essential bases for successful day-to-day practices.

Here are five recommendations in addressing long-term development:

1. Elite athletes must keep general training to a minimum. Gone are the days when building an “aerobic base” and regarding it as beneficial to specific development was acceptable. General work can enhance recovery and aid in injury prevention but shouldn’t be developed beyond what is absolutely necessary.
2. You should address specific training and technical development all season long. This includes continually using the most important exercises and best training methods.
3. Generally speaking, “less is more” in most aspects of training. Elite jumpers respond best to greater intensity and lesser volume. Much of the literature—especially regarding plyometric training—emphasizes volume far too much.
4. Training quality is the most important aspect of programming and planning. You should monitor daily sessions for all specific exercises. The target is always the highest-quality speed and power expression. The session or particular exercise should stop when the outcome drops below desirable levels.
5. With specific training continually present in some form, it is important to think in terms of emphasis shifts rather than rigidly focused training blocks. Done correctly, emphasis shifts provide seamless transitions throughout the year.

Recommendations for Speed Development

Horizontal jumps are speed-dominant events. Speed-based programs have been highly successful in developing the best jumpers in the world. Approach speed can determine up to 95% of the distance achieved and, therefore, remains the single most important quality a jumper can develop.

Of the two jumps, the long jump requires greater approach speed. With the need for stability and control, the triple jump involves slightly lower speeds. Programming for speed development is a multi-dimensional process involving many moving parts. While perfecting the skill aspect of sprinting requires considerable repetition, the inclusion of complementary training makes continued speed development possible.

Here are five recommendations for speed development:

1. Speed development should be related to the long- or triple-jump approach for the majority of the year. You can start approach development as early as the first specific phase and continue to implement it for the rest of the season. Rhythmic approach running at a sub-max pace is a great way to begin. Athletes’ rhythm and feel during the approach run will significantly improve their ability to generate higher speeds.
2. You should emphasize maximum velocity sprinting mechanics from day one. Coaches often ignore max velocity work until late in the preparation period. Few training methods have a more significant impact on max velocity ability than practicing the skill itself. Therefore, it is essential to devote as much time to sprinting skill as to strength- or power-related exercises.
3. Intensity and technique are the cornerstones of a speed training program. Athletes need to do accelerations and max velocity sprinting at or near 100% effort followed by maximum recovery periods. Stop the session when fatigue compromises technique and performance.
4. Acceleration sessions typically consisting of sprints less than 40m in length and a total of 300m should be employed all year. Successful methods for acceleration development include hill sprints, sled sprints, plyometric combination sprints, and medicine-ball throwing to sprinting variations.
5. Long speed endurance development plays a key role in developing a relaxed sprinting style and enhancing the jumper’s ability to move with ease during high-velocity takeoff. However, many high school and college programs overuse speed endurance training. Overdevelopment of this quality is to the detriment of more important qualities such as speed, strength, and power.

Recommendations for the Approach Run

As vital as speed development is for a horizontal jumper, it is during the approach run where all can either be gained or lost. Technical elements of the approach run include rhythm, timing, consistency, and accuracy. All require considerable attention within the training program.

Full-approach practice also plays a vital role in developing the specific strength and power requirements for high-speed takeoffs. This is the only possible type of practice that can develop such qualities.

Here are five recommendations to plan for and develop the approach run:

1. The starting method—whether a run-in, walk-in, or standing start—should be consistent. Developing an effective approach means practicing it the same way every time. The rhythm and feel of the approach must become second nature.
2. Use a check mark for the third stride (6 steps) because fouling issues are related in large part to errors during those first three strides. By hitting the same mark every time on the third stride, the athlete controls this section of the approach and, therefore, helps to minimize error later on.
3. Use the same number of running strides every time, ideally 16–24 depending on the athlete’s speed and strength. Once the optimum approach distance has been established, it should always be practiced the same way. Consider extending young athletes’ approach when they have improved speed, strength, power AND technical proficiency at higher speeds. A long jumper who relies more on vertical velocity than horizontal velocity may use a slightly shorter approach.
4. Ideally an athlete will use a relaxed and progressive acceleration pattern during the approach run. An approach is only successful if it helps the transition to an effective takeoff. Therefore, timing, rhythm, and posture are essential throughout.
5. Reach optimal takeoff speed roughly five meters from the board and maintain this speed. Until this point, velocity should be gradually increasing. During the final 5m the jumper begins to prepare for takeoff.

Recommendations for Technical Sessions

Technical jump and approach sessions generally make up a large chunk of a jumper’s training program. They provide an essential link between all other training components and event-specific performance. These sessions provide far more than just a technical stimulus. For example, there is not a more specific plyometric action for the long jumper than actually long jumping. These sessions are extremely important on many levels and should be a priority for coaches and athletes.

Here are five recommendations for planning and implementing technical sessions:

1. Technical sessions don’t always involve jumping into the pit. However, they should remain specific to the technical requirements of the event. They are the highlight of the week for many jumpers and ideally occur after a rest day or a short speed/power day.
2. Technical sessions can emphasize the following:
   • Approach rhythm/timing/posture
   • Approach speed/top-speed mechanics
   • Penultimate stride action—roll, push, and extension
   • Takeoff plant—extend, fast paw down and back, push, and extend
   • Free-leg action—parallel thigh block, lower leg tucked under, hips forward
   • Flight—tall and long body throughout
   • Landing—hips and feet far forward with feet together. Dig heels down into sand and pull with hamstrings
3. Three effective tools you can use during technical sessions and their specific purposes:
   • Place a low/medium hurdle 1–2 meters past the takeoff board. The goal is reaching the hurdle with free leg knee drive before leaving the takeoff board. Helps with board penetration and takeoff angle.
   • Penultimate step plant on a 2–3-inch board/box. Provides greater eccentric load during takeoff plant.
   • Place string/rope at the landing spot/goal. Reaching past a visible marker during landing improves foot placement and correct body positioning.
4. Athletes must develop the skill of board accuracy during each session. Board accuracy has two components. The first is physiological, and the second is a skill-based technical issue. A learning concept called Practice Variability may be beneficial in this regard. It can take many forms in relation to the horizontal jumps. Here are a few examples:
   • Systematically or randomly alternate varying stride numbers during jump attempts and aim for the same board position strike
   • Slightly alter starting position (+/-30cm) and aim for the same board position strike
   • Use cluster sets of approach stride numbers, followed by alternating random number of strides during short approach jumps
   • Use random approach length with unknown stride number and aim to strike the board accurately
   • Respond to specific directions for targeting the board in a random fashion (short, long, 3 inches past the board, etc.)
5. These technical drills can benefit jumpers’ development:
   • Standing penultimate—penultimate leg bent at knee up, land with heel lead, roll on and off foot
   • Continuous knee drive drill—drive free leg knee up and down with support leg stiff-hopping forward
   • 1-step takeoffs—continuous takeoffs with 1 running step in between
   • 3-step takeoffs—continuous takeoffs with 3 running steps in between
   • 5-step takeoffs —continuous takeoffs with 5 running steps in between
   • Alternate easy skip/aggressive skip—drive knee on aggressive skip like a takeoff
   • Power skips—alternate jumps working on knee drives
   • Mini-hurdle takeoffs—work on penetration past hurdle
   • High hurdle takeoffs—work on vertical components of jump
   • Penultimate step-box drill—run penultimate off low box onto takeoff and jump
   • S/L depth takeoff—drop from low box into takeoff action
   • S/L depth takeoff with preceding running strides—as above with a run onto the box
   • Short run jumps, w/wo landing, w/wo weight vest—4, 6, 8, 10, 12, etc. strides
   • Rhythm runs approach work—using 70–80% of speed
   • Rhythm runs with a pop-up—70–80% runs with a pop-up at end

Recommendations for the Weight Room

Weight training is an important and highly individual aspect of the training program. It requires a great deal of consideration and planning. Strength can provide a base for a body resilient to injury and an explosive body capable of generating great force. You should implement special guidelines to ensure that your strength program targets the needs of each athlete. A strength program implemented incorrectly can have an adverse effect.

Here are five recommendations for designing a strength training program:

1. Spend the early years of specialized development increasing maximum strength levels, primarily in the squat, step-up, lunge, and pulling movements. As a rule of thumb, a full squat of 2x body weight, power clean of 1.5x, power snatch of 1.3x, and parallel step-up of 1.5x are optimal. These are general guidelines and not necessary for athletes with excellent high-velocity qualities. The sooner athletes attain optimal maximum strength, the sooner they can focus on special strength training. You should plan a brief session for maximum strength maintenance every ten days or so.
2. The most important qualities for a jumper are elastic and reactive strength and high-speed strength. Special strength should be developed through high-velocity and maximum effort repetitions using exercises such as jump squats, hang power cleans, hang power snatches, and squatting exercises using pneumatic machines.
3. Relatively low-cost technology helps determine power output and velocity during certain exercises. I recommend using it to determine optimal power training loads for your athletes and provide information about session quality. Track the quality of performance during every session whenever possible. If the desired power output or velocity is no longer possible because of fatigue, an alteration to the session needs to occur. Remember my earlier recommendations: quality over quantity and less is often more.
4. There is a negative relationship between the development of maximum strength and special strength in advanced jumpers. It is a common mistake for coaches to place a huge emphasis on heavy loads in the weight room for the majority of the year. The saying “Strong is never strong enough” is simply not true for high-velocity speed/power athletes.
5. Strength training programs for jumpers often include bodybuilding-style circuits. Typically they occur on low-intensity days and are used for general strength. These circuits are unnecessary for many male athletes. Female athletes who will likely never gain upper-body bulk can incorporate them. General strength routines for jumpers should focus mainly on the rotation core, lower back, feet and ankles, and lateral moving lower body exercises.

Recommendations for Plyometric Training

Plyometric or jump training is a popular method of training. It can elicit tremendous neuromuscular responses by providing great stimulus in the form of extremely fast eccentric-concentric muscular contractions. You might argue that this is the most specific form of strength/power training. This exact muscular loading sequence is replicated during all aspects of horizontal jumping events and, therefore, plyometric training benefits these athletes.

As with most high-intensity training methods, plyometrics can be regarded as high-risk/high-reward. Careful programming with correct technique, progressions, and exercise choices is especially important.

Here are five recommendations for including plyometric training:

1. The speed at which a muscle is lengthened during the stretch-shortening cycle is a key aspect of successful plyometrics. The greater the rate of stretch, the greater the resultant force during the subsequent contraction. No matter the level or intensity of the plyometric exercise being performed, athletes need to approach each repetition with this concept in mind.
2. A recommended plyometric progression for developing jumpers:
   • Standing multi-jumps
   • Linear/lateral multi-jumps
   • Skipping variations
   • Hopping variations
   • Bounding variations
   • Basic low- to high-box single-depth jumps
   • Multi-box depth jumps
   • S/L depth jumps
   • S/L depth jumps with run in
3. Generally speaking, I don’t recommend an intensive plyometric-based program for elite jumpers. By the nature of their event, triple jumpers require a high ability to perform specific plyometric actions such as hopping and bounding. Their overall program should differ from long jumpers, high jumpers, and pole vaulters, who only require a single maximal-effort takeoff action. Plyometric training should reflect specific event requirements and it is important to understand that a jumper’s technical training should be included when assessing plyometric load.
4. Depth-jump height is an important discussion point. It is wise to progress gradually the box heights at the pace by which the athlete increases his/her rebounding ability. Adapting to a new box height may take several sessions, so do not immediately return to the previous box if rebounding height suddenly decreases.
5. Plyometric/jump training should include a variety of landing methods to develop stretch reflexes and eccentric abilities. Almost all the plyometric progressions listed above can be performed with a static landing/pause. This method is great for developing stability and eccentric strength. Both flat foot and ball of the foot contacts should be used during depth jumps to mimic sprinting and takeoff actions.

Recommendations for Readiness, Recovery, and Restoration

No training program can succeed without carefully monitoring the three Rs: Readiness, Recovery, and Restoration. The human body can only withstand so much. With athletes and coaches wanting to push the limits of human performance, understanding the holistic view of health and recovery becomes vital. Developing optimal health with performance is a difficult process that may take several minds to master. Ice bags and ibuprofen aren’t enough to compete at the highest level any longer. Health and high performance require full-time monitoring, evaluating, and adapting to be optimized.

Here are five recommendations for approaching Readiness, Recovery, and Restoration:

1. Readiness, Recovery, and Restoration is a 24/7/365 consideration. Health maintenance encompasses a vast array of components: the amount of quality sleep, the variety of organic quality food, the management of various stressors, and more. Serious athletes need to consider everything they do as it all can have a positive or negative impact on their health. Their health habits contribute greatly to their ability to benefit from their training routines and recover from them.
2. Readiness, Recovery, and Restoration are enhanced through proper warming up and cooling down. A thorough and well-designed warmup and cool-down program is easy to achieve but often is a neglected aspect of the daily training routine. Warmup and cool-down should be progressive and cover non-specific and specific movement patterns and muscle groups. Both are great places to incorporate general strength routines and general fitness work.
3. Following the above points allows the body to utilize its natural healing process and become highly efficient at dealing with positive and negative stressors. The better the human body is at this, the more comprehensive it will be at optimizing performance.
4. Water immersion techniques aid the recovery process. Twenty minutes neck-deep in a swimming pool daily or every other day is ideal. Light mobility exercises can be performed during each pool session. A number of successful jumps programs feature a 1-to-1 ratio of land sessions to pool sessions.
5. A rarely used set up of an 8-10 day cycle allows you to spread out the training elements over a longer period. By taking your current 7-day program and including one or two lower load days you are enhancing the adaptation process. Not only does this set up add more recovery days, it also allows for higher training loads to be used during specific days. This can be especially effective when working with older athletes.

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

“Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.” – Mark Twain

“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Mark Twain

“Cognitive psychology tells us that the unaided human mind is vulnerable to many fallacies and illusions because of its reliance on its memory for vivid anecdotes rather than systematic statistics.” – Steven Pinker

It is getting close to camp time, which means coaches get out their stopwatches and time 40s. I am always amazed at what I hear. High school athletes strut around and claim 4.4s or 4.5s like they are an everyday occurrence. But these are 15- and 16-year-old adolescents. More often than not— in fact almost all of the time—the math doesn’t seem to add up.

The athlete with a 24-inch vertical jump doesn’t run a 4.4. A 55m sprinter who runs a 6.9 FAT doesn’t run a 4.4. An 11.5 100m dash does not equate to a 4.4. It is mathematically impossible for an athlete to run that time and still get a 4.4. Yet that is what I hear. I think that track is catching on with college recruiters because it is easy to see who truly is fast. Timers don’t lie. Electronic timers provide facts. A 4.4 is a statistic or other things according to Mark Twain, who ran 4.47 in Clinton, Iowa, in 1871. A 4.4 is an illusion for most. So let’s look at this magical number more closely.

How the 40 is being timed is the first question that needs to be asked. The only measure that makes sense to me is a true electronic-to-electronic timer. Athletes start the clock when their hand comes off a touchpad, and stopit when their bodies break an electronic barrier of some sort. That is the most exact method I can think of (such as Freelap timers).

Even the NFL combine is slightly off. Scouts sitting near the finish line manually start each player. To my knowledge, there is no research on the time difference between purely electronic and combine style. In track, the conversion between FAT and handheld in a 55mm dash is .24 seconds. From that point, it is the Wild West.

Two different papers in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning found that hand timing is significantly faster than electronic timing. In both papers, the researchers claim that the handheld timers were experienced. I am guessing that means they practice with electronic timers to see how close they get to its results. In the 2010 paper, the differences between the timers ranged from .14 to .19. The result was a difference between .22 and .31 between pure electronic and hand-held (personally, I range from .24 to .3 with the Freelap). That is a substantial difference in a world that lives in the hundredths. Now, throw in high school coaches using their thumbs to stop the watch or their cell phones, and numbers can be crazy and incredibly inaccurate. And how many of those coaches have not timed a 40 since the previous summer? I can see 4.4 in this scenario.

The next variables are shoes and surfaces. There are huge differences in time when these are added. When we run fly 10s, the range when athletes wear spikes or flats is from .03 to .06. My faster runners have bigger differences. Stretch that out 20 more yards and those hundredths start to add up. This does not take into account the start, when athletes need the most traction. I have no numbers for this because everyone always seems to remember to bring spikes on start days.

Surfaces make a huge difference too. A hot, hard track is always faster than poorly groomed turf, a basketball court, or the parking lot. Training shoes don’t do so well on a basketball floor.

What brings me to this rant is the fact that most high school athletes think they should be running incredible times. But their numbers don’t match reality. I have an NFL player who plays slot, gunner, and anti-gunner. He has run 4.47 and 4.48 for three NFL teams. His current team told him that he is their 3rd fastest. He ran 40s on an old track in 4.71 on the Freelap. (His Nike Frees are about the worst shoe you can run in. They tip your foot forward and cause your forefoot to jam into the ground, hence becoming a brake.) At the same time, same practice, my best sprinter (10.83 FAT) ran a 4.51 40 in spikes. Is one faster than the other? They are close, but on this day, with different shoes, they were different.

Now the dose of reality. These are positional averages for NFL combines from 2007 to 2012, thanks to Wikipedia. Remember, being the best in each position usually has some correlation with speed.

These are hand-started, beam-finished averages. That means for each WR who runs a 4.4, another runs a 4.7. And your fastest guys rarely weigh more than 190 pounds. So, if you’re a running back or wide receiver with a 4.4, welcome to the top of the class!

What are some good markers for HS athletes? My base workout distance is 10m. I like meters because athletes focus too much on trying to convert to a 40 time rather than on finding top speed. Anything under 1.0 in the fly 10 is really good for a high school athlete. My best HS athlete’s time was .95. If they are slightly over 1.0, they can still run a 4.4/4.5. The start is a huge component. In fact, most NFL 4.4s have great starts but never stand up for top-end speed. Your sub-4.4s are the ones who can transfer from acceleration to top-end speed.

Our starts are in yards. Guys who end up running decent times can go under 3 seconds electronically in the 20yd and 4 seconds in the 30yd. Those are realistic marks for good high school athletes. Any high school athlete under 5.0 in a 40 electronic is fast.

Now, this is all only relevant if you are truly interested in seeing your players get faster and checking if your program is making athletes faster. You don’t have to share these times with the college recruiters. Let them figure it out on their own, or subtract 0.3 from their best Freelap 40.

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

In this world of Instagram, YouTube, and all other media that show us how to do something, we strive to get our athletes to look the part. Sometimes, however, it’s better to understand your athlete’s individual challenges than to force them to look like the picture you’ve seen on the Internet or Twitter.

Case in point is my junior sprinter who was fourth in the state of Illinois for the class of 2A in the 100m Dash. I have been haunted by a picture of him in the finals on his second step of the race.

My sprinter had a habit of picking his head up in his start. More specifically, he looked at the gun when it fired and then he stood and ran. In this case, it cost him a step in the finals of a race where athletes cannot afford to give up a step.

Video 1. Losing a step in the start.

I decided to spend the summer and winter working on his start (I lose him in the fall to football) after studying perfect starts on Altis.world and reading that, if an athlete can’t get the start of the race correct, he can’t finish properly. My sprinter studied video on YouTube and ALTIS, and we tried to break down his starts to perfect the technique; to look perfect.

To check if he increased speed, I placed timers at 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40m. I also filmed his starts to see how his technique looked and to match starts with times.

To train to the perfect position, I suspended his body with jump stretch bands so he could get used to moving into position by unweighting his torso without feeling the urge to break at the waist. Then we went out and drilled.

As his position started to look better, his times did not improve; they stayed about the same. But he looked like he was supposed to look. Once he mastered the move, he cut his speed to sub 3.9 30’s in flats in a hallway. He was moving for a 16-year-old athlete. (I’m sure the 1080 Sprint had a lot to do with his drop).

In the finals of his first meet after beginning the training, at Plainfield North Invitational, my sprinter heard the bang, looked up to find the gun, stood up, and ran just like he did before the new training. The guy who beat him already had a step on him at this point–the first step of the race. It didn’t help that he pulled up early as well. In practice, someone says “set go” or “go,” there is no gunshot. We learned it was the intensity of a meet or the bang from a gun that seems to instantly change him neurologically.

My job as a coach is to make decisions to position my athletes to accomplish their goals. My sprinter’s goal was to not lose, and I tried to force him to be something that he was not. So we made more changes.

First, I broke out my old FinishLynx ReacTime. It measures power output and reaction time from the blocks. With the ALTIS start, my sprinter’s reaction time was over 0.23 (under 0.15 is good) and his power was low. The ReacTime also plays a recording of a gun going off. Because I couldn’t neurologically stop him from “peeking,” I tried to activate him in positions of power and positions of transition. I activated his vision, which was weak when he looked up, by training him with colored glasses.

Eventually, I ran out of bullets and used that to our advantage and went Ben Johnson, but without the drugs. We pulled his blocks back and let him look up at the gun. This eliminated his desire to snap his head up and pop up or stand.

What happened? In practice, he reduced his reaction time to 0.15. His power in the blocks skyrocketed from 3400 to 27000. What happened in his next race? He ran 6.88 in the 60, FAT. The previous week, he was 6.2 in the 55, handheld.

For three hours, he was the fastest man in Illinois, until another athlete ran a 6.85 somewhere in Southern Illinois.

While a photo perfect start may be great, sometimes you have to go with what you have. The body’s immediate reaction is to protect and defend. My sprinter was a very visual person and I took that away from him, subconsciously placing him in a fight or flight mode which delayed reaction time and decreased power output and relaxation.

Although I would love to have picture perfect starts with my athlete, I think he liked winning a little bit 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

Heart rate variability (HRV) is a relatively new tool for monitoring cardiac stress in an individual, often for athletic purposes, which is a direct reflection of the collective forms of stress that the body is exposed to in a given environment. This includes training stress, mental stress, hydration levels, emotional stress, anxiety, fatigue, and more.

HRV measures the heart’s contractile variation from beat to beat by evaluating the consistency between R waves (R-R intervals), as seen on an electrocardiogram (ECG) reading:

Typically, the less stressed and fatigued the body is, the more variable the time interval between heartbeats. This interval is highly specific to an individual and can vary according to the individual’s anatomy (size of left ventricle), prior fitness background, hormonal status, exercise modality, age, gender, mood, and economic efficiency. External factors such as body position, temperature and humidity, altitude, and drugs or stimulants can also impact daily stress on the autonomic system.

How Is HRV Measured?

You don’t need an ECG machine or other fancy equipment to extract this data. A heart rate monitor and the HRV software will do—many programs are now well adapted in app form, with measurements taken in the comfort of the home by utilizing a heart rate monitor and smartphone for one to three minutes.

High-frequency power (HFP) is a sub-marker for changes in heart rate variability, specifically pertaining to cardiac parasympathetic activity (Kingsley & Figueroa, 2016). Heart rate recovery after exercise is largely influenced by the parasympathetic nervous system’s reactivation and sympathetic deactivation as the body gradually returns to a resting state. Changes in HRV in response to training can provide insight into the way the cardiac autonomic system is responding to the exercise. Longer heart rate recovery times will yield lower HRV readings, indicating the need for more rest. Conversely, increases in HFP and HRV have been linked to improved fitness levels. Different modalities of training will provide different responses in cardiac recovery, and therefore should be treated individually with respect to HRV response and training adaptation.

How Does Training Stress Affect HRV?

A range of research studies have shown that high-intensity endurance training improves (increases) heart rate variability. Nummela et al. (2016) performed a study where, after a four-week base training period, participants were split into either an experimental training group with three added high-intensity sessions per week, or a control group with no changes in training, for a subsequent four-week period. This study showed that the high-intensity group improved their VO2 max, decreased their nocturnal heart rate, and increased their nocturnal high frequency power (HFP) after the four-week cycle.

A lower resting heart rate and higher HFP, as found in this study, are both related to higher levels of endurance performance. This study is also an example of how variation in intensity versus constant-load aerobic exercise is necessary to exhibit changes in aerobic capacity, as observed by the lack of changes in the constant-load control group. High-intensity training is thought to improve both the central and peripheral components of VO2 max, whereas constant-load training mainly affects oxygen extraction in the periphery.

The effect of endurance exercise on HRV is clearly beneficial to aerobic fitness; however, resistance training does not elicit the same type of adaptation. While we are looking to see an increase in the parasympathetic activity post-exercise, acute resistance exercise appears to have the opposite effect, regardless of age (Kingsley & Figueroa, 2016).

A supporting study by Vrachimis et al. (2016) suggested that circuit training in the form of bodyweight exercises was not a sufficient form of exercise to impact resting HRV in healthy, untrained adults. In this study, other factors improved during the six-week training period, including decreased diastolic blood pressure and increased lean body mass, VO2 max, and other strength measures. This particular modality of training may reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, but is an insufficient stimulus to improve HRV and the body’s autonomic response to training.

HRV as a Predictor of Overtraining and Adaptation

You can draw a fine line between overtraining and adaptation: to maximize progress during a particular training cycle, athletes usually hover on the brink between the two. Three factors that can individually or collectively lead an athlete into an overtrained state are: an overload in volume and/or intensity, an uncontrollable magnitude in load, and a lack of recovery time between loads.

In non-contact sports, the load can often be directly controlled and executed. In contact sports, however, it is much more difficult to control the intensity placed on athletes during each training session (Morales et al., 2014). In a 2014 study of judo athletes by Morales et al., they compared a randomized high-training load group (daily judo sessions plus additional conditioning and strength sessions twice each week) to a moderate-training load group (only three judo sessions per week). Participants in the high-training load group showed a significant imbalance of the autonomic nervous system, as indicated by lower HRV scores. In addition, this group demonstrated a decrease in strength parameters, higher levels of stress markers, and a lower perception of recovery. The predominance of sympathetic activity in these athletes indicates the presence of lingering physical and/or mental stress, and thus, incomplete recovery from training.

A study by Vesterinen, Hakkinen et al. (2016) aimed to predict individual adaptation to either high-volume or high-intensity endurance training. An eight-week base period standardized for all participants was followed by an eight-week experimental period with participants randomly placed into one of two groups. The high-volume training group increased their volume by 30-50%, while the training intensity remained the same; the high-intensity group replaced three low-intensity sessions per week with three moderate- or high-intensity sessions performed at heart rates above the lactate threshold, with volume remaining the same. The participants in this study were recreational endurance runners with a solid fitness base.

The results of the study indicate that, in individuals with a well-developed fitness level, low-intensity high-volume training many not provide sufficient stimulus to disturb the autonomic homeostasis in order to initiate desirable training adaptation. Furthermore, the study demonstrated that individuals with a higher vagal activity (HFP) have a more-adept capacity to cope with increased training intensity and load, leading to greater adaptation response. In addition, the study suggested that individuals with lower vagal activity and less training experience would respond with greater adaptation to the lower-intensity, higher-volume program.

The findings demonstrated by these two studies indicate that coaches can use autonomic response to training stress as a tool and marker for monitoring overtraining and adaptation. Individual athletes can respond very differently to the same stress, since many physiological, environmental, mental, and emotional factors are at play. Considering all these factors, coaches cannot assume that a particular training stress will elicit the same response across all athletes…and thus, HRV comes into play.

HRV as a Program Design Tool

One of the easiest and most direct ways to monitor this response is to include daily resting HRV measurements into the athlete’s schedule to ensure the programming is capitalizing on maximum adaptation and the avoidance of overtraining symptoms. Vesterinen, Nummela et al. (2016), mentioned that moderately fit men showed greater response in VO2 max, and healthy individuals showed improved endurance, when both groups were prescribed with high-intensity training sessions according to their HRV reading. The results of both groups were in comparison to a control group executing a predefined training program. The study authors suggested that women may need a differently tailored HRV-guided program than men, as they are often more susceptible to prolonged recovery, though the specific gender differences were not explored by this study.

A major advantage of HRV monitoring throughout training is to avoid the imbalance between training load and recovery, not to mention the fact that cardiac autonomic regulation is an important determinant of endurance training adaptation and performance. Coaches have a non-invasive, physiologic indicator of program efficacy right at their fingertips…all that you need is a heart rate monitor and an HRV software/app to make it happen.

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

References

1. Kingsley, J. & Figueroa, A. (2016). “Acute and training effects of resistance exercise on heart rate variability.” Clinical Physiology & Functional Imaging Volume, 36(3), 179-187.
2. Morales J., Alamo, J. M., García-Massó, X., Buscà, B., López, J. L., Serra-Añó, P., & González, L. M. (2014). “Use of heart rate variability in monitoring stress and recovery in judo athletes.” Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 28(7), 1896-1905.
3. Nummela, A., Hynynen, E., Kaikkonen, P., & Rusko, H. (2016). “High-intensity endurance training increases nocturnal heart rate variability in sedentary participants.” Biology of Sport, 33(1), 7-13.
4. Vesterinen, V., Hakkinen, K., Laine, T., Hynynen, E., Mikkola, J., & Nummela, A. (2016). “Predictors of individual adaptation to high-volume or high-intensity endurance training in recreational endurance runners.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 26, 885-93.
5. Vesterinen, V., Nummela, A., Heikura, I., Laine, T., Hynynen, E., Botella, J., & Hakkinen, K. (2016). “Individual endurance training prescription with heart rate variability.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48(7), 1347-54.
6. Vrachimis, A., Hadjicharalambous, M., & Tyler, C. (2016). “The effect of circuit training on resting heart rate variability, cardiovascular disease risk factors and physical fitness in health untrained adults.” Health, 8, 144-55.

The success and capabilities of a good sports performance/strength & conditioning program should be evaluated by the effective and efficient use of the program’s resources, processes, and priorities.² Resources are primarily the staff, equipment available, technology, and relationships. Processes are the way in which your resources, notably your staff, communicate and coordinate their work. Resources and processes balance each other out as you can have good resources and bad process, or vice-versa, and your program can still be garbage. How your organization makes decisions on how to go about using your resources and processes is a statement on what your priorities are as a program and ultimately determines the type of work you do and the kind of athletes you develop.

Evaluating the performance changes you need to make currently, consider timing (the point in the year you are competitively) and whether you have the resources to take effective action. Using mountain climbing as an analogy, current conditions, timing, and resources are the first things major expeditions must contemplate when planning a major summit attempt. One notable mountain is K2 which kills one climber for every four who summit. Coaches do not have to generate plans that take survival into account, but they will experience the greatest resistance at critical points in the training year, especially near important competitions when training loads are highest. At these points, changing course may be either impossible or ineffective because timing for peak performance, like summiting, may need to occur at X time and Y place. Therefore, your training velocity and time are critical components in how to orient the process of physical preparation (Figure 1).

In elite sport, this is not a hit or miss proposition, and there are times when success can only be guaranteed by demonstrating successful peak performance. As Steven Plisk said, “we do not land on top of the mountain by falling there.” Straying off course or encountering poor conditions forces everyone to use adaptive planning, but this process is always enhanced by better information and an understanding of why we humans choose to climb mountains or go to the moon.

Peak Force, Power, and Velocity

This is important for the overall process but also true down to the orientation of even a single physical performance act, demonstrated here through a countermovement jump (Figure 2).

It’s easy to see what Cal Dietz was thinking about regarding triphasic training, force, and muscle contraction.⁷. But look beyond force and consider the timing and sequence of events with respect to the relationship among force, power, and velocity. In the jump component of this data, on the left, peak forces precede peak power which precedes peak velocity. Will asymmetry, demonstrated by the green and yellow curves, take you “off course” or impact force-velocity relationships? Absolutely they will.

Neuromuscular forces have a direct relationship with power and velocity. Power’s transitional nature creates multiple peaks just before and after the peak forces of either eccentric or concentric nature. The exception to this is in the impact nature of the landing which offers an extreme “Verkhoshanskyian” shock, demonstrating the complex nature of eccentric contractions (high force, high power, and high negative velocity being fundamentally different than concentric performance).

This validates everything from plyometrics to post-activation potentiation to periodization and also provides an argument against reductionist thinking. We cannot chase one quality without the others, nor can we neglect power loads for high force or high-velocity movements alone. Peter Mundy, et al. (2016) demonstrated that countermovement jump net impulse was positively influenced by increasing load, while average and peak power both reduced.¹⁵

Sequencing Loads

There is also evidence that there is no definitive optimal load for the development of power, as many of these differences are quite minor across a specific bandwidth based on the training exercise selected.^{11, 15} The focus instead should be placed on how to best sequence these loads to coincide with the sport, programming variables, and competition schedule.^{11, 15} We cannot oversimplify the interrelationship among force, power, and velocity in applied practice even if we love to do so with generic theoretical frameworks. Isolating each component’s development may be simpler when planning training loads, but it does not capture or represent the full complexity of the adaptation process.

Let’s explore why sequencing and timing are important to periodization, planning, and performance. In strength and conditioning circles, it is appropriate to develop a specific strategy and tactics to develop athletes capable of achieving high performance. Other practitioners who hope to gain from this experience must consider why this strategy may not be successful for them as much as why it may.

The rationale provided by Cal Dietz and triphasic training, phase potentiation, and conjugate sequential periodization, demonstrates that, with respect to magnitude, physical preparation depends upon strength development and volume load. For rate-limiting factors, depending on the sport and position, velocity and/or momentum underpin performance (with momentum, i.e. mass x velocity, being equal to impulse). This is why Bondarchuk’s system was so successful with relatively large athletes imposing their physical might upon a smaller object. High specificity, combined with high amounts of velocity and momentum, are applied across a range of training loads with great technical precision. Also note that maximum force is de-emphasized beyond a specific point.

Peak Performance

Peak force, peak power, and peak velocity all share in a relationship with peak performance. When applying this in practice, there should be consideration for how these elements are achieved and the tools we use to achieve them. An isolated snapshot of such measures, often from athlete monitoring, has limitations. We need the full context to create effective analysis.

Make sure athletes understand they will move closer to and further away from their peak performance, based on the necessary sequence and timing of training loads. These loads have to challenge their recovery and adaptive ability to address limiting factors that may not limit their current speed and power expression but do inhibit the development of greater physical performance. This is where periodization may be most effective. Training loads must disturb this homeostasis. Understanding how they do so, at the micro and mesocycle level, is important when determining a performance target.

As explained by Dr. Jeremy Sheppard, high training loads have an inoculation effect and generate a resiliency and robustness in physical performance, but how you get to those high loads is important (training dosage). Athlete monitoring helps manage these workloads as we measure responses associated with loading that pushes athletes to the necessary adaptations.

The coordination of force and velocity development requires an appropriate distribution of the workload across mechanical and energetic specificity, according to the principles of dynamic correspondence. This allows for a more organic reduction in how “linear periodization” is performed and can reduce accommodation, monotony, and strain.^{3, 8, 17}

Dr. Prue Cormie’ research found that stronger athletes adapt to ballistic training at a faster rate with a greater magnitude and with more of a velocity-specific adaptation. Weaker athletes improve but with more of a general response and with limitations to the rate and magnitude of improvement.⁵

Dr. Cormie’s research also has some specific limitations. During the study, athletes stopped strength training, and stronger athletes experienced slight detraining that may have interfered with further improvement in ballistic strength (-4.6% in Back Squat 1RM/BM). Also, the training program was highly specific with limited training variability which may have also limited further improvements, especially in stronger athletes.

Dr. Sophia Nimphius’ research demonstrates this as well. Dr. Nimphius studied the effects that stopping resistance training, common in a performance taper, had on countermovement jump performance.¹⁶ Over a 14-day period, jump height was the same on the 4th day and the 14th day, but how athletes jumped changed substantially (Figure 5). Athletes changed their force-time characteristics to jump with greater velocity, with reduced force and greater power. Once again, how athletes reach their target is an important part of physical preparation.

These findings parallel research from Andersen and Aagaard (2010) showing a 7% reduction in myosin heavy chain IIX composition (fast-twitch fibers) across a 3-month training cycle and then a rebound to 15% after a 3-month detraining period.¹

Another study from Andersen showed this rebound effect was complemented by an increase in rate of force development, a critical adaptation in power-speed athletes.¹ Again this points not only to the specific training loads themselves but also to the importance of when and how these training loads are applied, and subsequently reduced, and when performance is fully actualized with taper length or a simpler reduction in training density.

Reactive Strength Index

Looking at these relationships another way, we see that biological system redundancy covers a wide range of training and recovery demands. The reactive strength index (RSI) and reactive strength index modified (RSImod) are jump tests that evaluate the fast stretch-shortening cycle (RSI) and the slow stretch-shortening cycle (RSImod).^{13, 14}

These specific measures tell us how high an athlete jumped and how long it took them to do it, linking force production to output, and they tell us this specifically in meters/second. If we perform the assessment with a force plate, the force and velocity measures can provide information that we can immediately apply in the weight room (Table 1).¹³ Profiles like this can influence a training program specific to an individual athlete’s current needs, not to team averages or generic strength goals. This economizes training efforts directed toward what are often key performance indicators.

The timing for when to make specific changes to support these profiles involves current day to day stressors as well as long term timelines for an athlete’s development specific to their training phase and their final destination. For example, emphasizing max strength at the start of the competitive season may be possible depending on training level, but will require significantly more thought than working on strength in the athlete’s off-season.

The recovery pattern of the stretch-shortening cycle has a short and long recovery period. The short cycle occurs at 2 hours, and the long cycle takes up to 8 days.⁴ This corresponds with local inflammatory processes and recovery followed by more systemic inflammation and regeneration. Gathercole, et al. (2015) reported this relationship with a decrease at zero hours, recovery to baseline at 24 hours, followed by another decrease at 72 two hours.¹⁰

This information can positively influence program design for typical high-low microcycle organization, as there is the potential for consecutive training days with higher relative intensity without negative effects. This is noted empirically in the work of Dan Pfaff and others based on specific organizational and/or athlete constraints. RSImod is a simple way to support this process by assessing training readiness, influencing the quality, quantity, or the concentration of the work to be performed with the potential to do so with three or fewer countermovement jumps.

Higher performers have greater variability in their force production to maintain jump height and to mask fatigue. They do this by lengthening the time to generate force, increasing contraction time, and reducing power. Depending on the sport, this can be an important distinction. Reductions could be significant to competitive performance but otherwise not be accounted for in training if we assess jump height alone.

Structural Differences in Athletes

Garhammer provides a great example in a study on snatch barbell velocities at the 1984 Olympic Games (Figure 6).⁹ The SW lifter is 56 kilograms (123 pounds) while DL is just under 140 kilograms (just over 300 pounds). There are other obvious discrepancies in their proportions, notably height.

Athletes adapt different strategies based on their specific constraints to demonstrate effective sports performance, and a change in specific tactics may be required to be successful. This velocity-time trace illustrates why transitions are so smooth on Olympic weightlifting movements with smaller, shorter lifts and why the transition phase and double knee bend are so critical for taller, larger athletes.

Repositioning around the knees in the transition phase is imperative for taller athletes. However, it is crucial to teach the double knee bend without talking about the double knee bend; the athlete should not concentrate on rebending the knees. They should concentrate on getting their legs back underneath the body to “stay low,” as noted specifically by Chinese coaches, to allow for better tracking of the bar and improved leverage, setting up better leg drive in the second pull.

This intent, rather than the overextended and backward (jumping back) pull common in weightlifting and “rock and stomp” techniques, shapes the desired outcome more closely to mechanical and energetic specificity while reducing the cost of adaptation.

The more vertical trajectory provides a more even distribution of work from the trunk through the high pulling action, through the hips, knees, and ankles through a better aligned first pull from the floor to the second pull and jumping finish. Alternatively, an overextended pull increases demand on the extensor chain, that is more consistently seen now as overpowered, rather than a more even distribution with the trunk (anterior chain).

The outcome may be the same, even if you use external cueing successfully, but the distribution of the work is critical. Without it, we may end up far from the performance target. Performance may be driven by outputs, external cueing, and ultimately training load, but how we get there may require a back and forth dynamic, including internal cueing and process-based reflections and adjustments.

On a biomechanical, bioenergetic, or coordinative level, the cost of poor performance does not validate the return. If we improve the efficiency and timing of exercise, microcycles, and mesocycles, we will improve program effectiveness. Per Peter Drucker, “Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the right thing.”

If there are elements in your programming framework that concentrate on getting better by emphasizing more work, then there may be some adjustments to make. Many coaches understand work but not periodization and programming, and this can result in staleness and poor timing of bad performances and injury. A majority of training in your program does not necessarily have to be progressive (i.e., more than yesterday), but instead can be executed with greater purpose and mindfulness. The weight of an exercise’s value is not determined solely by its increase in volume load, but by the change in an individual athlete specific to their needs.

Dr. Jeremy Sheppard classifies this type of work and how it may fit into your overall scheme as loads that are performed “a lot, a little” or “a little, a lot.” Be less concerned with minimal effective dose and more concerned with showing adaptive readiness and amplifying training effects through effective programming at the microcycle level day in and day out.¹²

Far more important is phase potentiation showing how these loads are vertically integrated, effectively surfing the force-velocity curve from warm-ups to max efforts, and horizontally summated to best impact performance.¹² “The juice is worth the squeeze” as Dan Baker said.

“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure,” according to Goodhart’s Law. In sports performance and strength and conditioning, however, we can argue that key performance indicators have a domino effect on other qualities that justifies violating this law.

Solving Program and Performance Problems

It’s important to understand the overall framework of the sport, training phase, and athlete. Know when it’s beneficial to work toward specific targets or when athletes need to keep the goal the goal. The Cynefin sense-making framework helps explain how to find solutions for periodization, programming, and performance problems: identify whether you are in the simple, complicated, complex, or chaotic domains (Figure 7).¹⁸ With this knowledge, a coaching staff can use the information to organize the decision-making process in either a deliberate, mechanistic way or in response to emergent issues.².

The author thanks ForceDecks for the software images shared here.

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

References

1. Andersen J.L., and P. Aagaard. “Effects of Strength Training on Muscle Fiber Types and Size; Consequences for Athletes Training for High-Intensity Sport.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports. 20 (2): 32-38, 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01196.x.
2. Christensen, Clayton M., James Allworth, and Karen Dillon. How Will You Measure Your Life? (New York: Harper Collins Publishers) 2012.
3. DeWeese, B.H., Guy Hornsby, Meg Stone, and Michael H. Stone. “The Training Process: Planning for Strength-Power Training in Track and Field. Part 1: Theoretical Aspects.” Journal of Sport and Health Science. (4)4: 308-317, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2015.07.003.
4. Dousset E., J. Avela, M. Ishikawa, J. Kallio, S. Kuitunen, H. Kyrolainen, V. Linnamo, and P.V. Komi. “Bimodal Recovery Pattern in Human Skeletal Muscle Induced by Exhaustive Stretch-Shortening Cycle Exercise.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 39(3):453-460, 2007.
5. Cormie Prue, Michael R. McGuigan, and Robert U. Newton. “Influence of Strength on Magnitude and Mechanisms of Adaptation to Power Training.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 42(8): 1566-1581, 2010.
6. Cormie, Prue, and Sean P. Flanagan. “Does an Optimal Load Exist for Power?” Strength and Conditioning Journal. 30(2): 67-69, April 2008. doi:10.1519/SSC.0b013e31816a8776.
7. Dietz, Cal, and Ben Peterson. Triphasic Training: A Systematic Approach to Elite Speed and Explosive Strength Performance. (Hudson, Wisconsin: Bye Dietz Sports Enterprise) 2012.
8. Foster, Carl. “Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome.” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 30(7): 1164-1168, 1998.
9. Garhammer, John. “Biomechanical Profiles of Olympic Weightlifters.” International Journal of Sport Biomechanics. 1: 122-130, 1985.
10. Gathercole, R.J., B.C. Sporer, T. Stellingwerff, and G.G. Sleivert. “Comparison of the Capacity of Different Jump and Sprint Field Tests to Detect Neuromuscular Fatigue.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 29(9): 2522-2531, 2015. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000912.
11. Haff, G.G., and S. Nimphius. “Training Principles for Power.” Strength and Conditioning Journal. 34(6): 2-10, 2012.
12. Kiely, John. “Periodization Paradigms in the 21st Century: Evidence-Led or Tradition-Driven?” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 7(3): 242-250, 2012.
13. Kipp K., M.T. Kiely, and C.F. Geiser. “Reactive Strength Index Modified is a Valid Measure of Explosiveness in Collegiate Female Volleyball Players.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 30(5): 1341-1347, 2016. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001226.
14. Martinez, Daniel. “The Use of Reactive Strength Index, Reactive Strength Index Modified, and Flight Time: Contraction Time as Monitoring Tools.” Journal of Australian Strength & Conditioning. 24(5): 37-41, 2016.
15. Mundy P., N.A. Smith, M.A. Lauder, and J.P. Lake. “The effects of barbell load on countermovement vertical jump power and net impulse.” Journal of Sport Sciences. p. 1-7, 2016.
16. Nimphius, S. “Lag time: The Effect of a Two-Week Cessation from Resistance Training on Force, Velocity and Power in Elite Softball Players.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2010; 24(Supplement 1), 1. doi:10.1097/01.JSC.0000367186.47762.66.
17. Plisk, Steven S. “Effective Needs Analysis and Functional Training Principles,” in Strength and Conditioning for Sports Performance. eds. Ian Jeffreys and Jeremy Moody (New York: Routledge, 2016), 81-199.
18. Snowden, David J. and Mary E.Boone. “A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making.” Harvard Business Review. (Nov 2007; retrieved April 18th, 2016).