Blog

Christmas is great. You get presents, you see your family, you do fun stuff together, you eat nice food, and you get to relax. Everyone loves Christmas. But how can an athlete balance his or her training and diet over the festive period? It is a difficult question, but also a key issue – athletes and coaches are keen to maximize their adaptations from training and don’t want to miss a training session. Athletes who are competing indoors or in the cross-country season are likely to be both highly motivated to train and also anxious not to miss what are perceived to be important training sessions in the run up to their competitions. How can an athlete and coach balance the increased social demands and disruptions without wrecking all their hard work so far?

Do you actually need to train over Christmas?

The first question to consider is whether or not you need to train on Christmas Day? This year, Christmas falls on a Thursday, and for most people Thursday is a training day. Logic dictates that we should train on Christmas Day. There are many athletes who swear by the fact that they should train on Christmas. They see themselves as disciplined. Others think that it is a day where they can pull further ahead of their rivals who aren’t training on Christmas Day. Both arguments here are pretty illogical. Training on Christmas Day doesn’t make you more disciplined in general. There are 365 days in a year, and training discipline on the other 364 days is much more important than on the 25th December. Similarly, thinking that training on Christmas gets you ahead of your rivals is flawed thinking. One training session cannot make you into a World or Olympic Champion. Training is a process, with the sum greater than all of its constituent parts. The need for recovery is important, as is the need for mental down time. Training on Christmas Day can be stressful, as you have to find somewhere that is open and available to use, and also find time in the day. Finding time can be especially difficult if you are with the family, and they all have a plan or set routine. The increased stress of forcing a session on Christmas Day might not be worth it at all.

I’m not saying that athletes shouldn’t train on Christmas Day. By all means, if this is something you are used to doing, or enjoy doing, or even just really want to do, and then feel free to give it a go. What I am saying is that training on this day is not strictly necessary, and can be more hassle than it is worth. Added to the fact that Christmas falls at the end of three months of hard training, an additional few days off over this period might be beneficial.

If you do choose to train, please don’t post it all over social media as an illustration of how dedicated you are. It’s annoying, and other people are probably more dedicated than you on the other 364 days of the year.

Plan Ahead

The key to successful training over the Christmas period is planning. There will be multiple facility closures, so make sure you check the opening times of your usual training venue in advance. In the UK it is not that uncommon for training facilities to be closed for three days over Christmas, and also New Years Day. If you don’t want to have those four days off, then finding an alternative training venue is important. You might be able to get a guest pass for a different gym, or convince someone to come and open up the track for you and your training partners on a particular day.

The next thing to consider is travel. Many people travel to see relatives over the Christmas period, and so, should you wish, some level of organisation will be needed to ensure training is minimally disrupted. You will need to make sure that you pack any training kit you may need, as well as mobility stuff such as a foam roller and hockey ball. If you take supplements, it might be a good idea to take those too, unless you plan on having a few supplement clear days over the festive period (not necessarily a bad thing!).

Finally, once you know your travel plans and venue opening times, you and your coach should sit down together and come up with a Christmas schedule. Also remember to take into account your training partners travel and holiday arrangements, and try to come up with something that suits everyone; alternatively a few sessions training by yourself won’t hurt you. If you do want to train on Christmas Day, but are struggling to find a venue, anyone can do a tempo session in the park, or a bodyweight circuit at home. You just have to be prepared to compromise.

Build A Buffer

What with the venue and facility closures, travel and family arrangements, you might think it better to skip training on Christmas Day, and maybe even a few of the days over the whole festive period. I’m with you on that. One thing to consider here is building a buffer. It might be worthwhile doing some functional over-reaching in the lead up to your bonus few days off. This makes resting over Christmas positive and worthwhile and can make it easier for an athlete to accept the reduced training load / days off from a mental standpoint.

Similarly, athletes tend to worry (sometimes unnecessarily) over their diet. This can be especially tough over Christmas, with an abundance of cakes, chocolates and sweets available. A few days in the run up to Christmas where the athlete is strict with regards to their diet can make it easier psychologically to relax a bit on the big day. One of the worst things associated with being an athlete over the festive period are the immense feelings of guilt after eating a few too many chocolates or a second helping of Christmas pudding. Instead of having all these negative emotions, it is much better to build a diet buffer in the days leading up to Christmas, and then enjoy yourself on the day.

Diet

Ah, the Christmas diet issue. If you’re anything like me, you’ve spent a lot of your winter training period getting into reasonably good shape physically, and making sure your body composition is right. To achieve this, you have been eating a reasonably controlled diet, nothing too drastic, but obviously biscuits and copious amounts of chocolate are off the table. Then Christmas hits. What should you do? You know you have no will-power, and that massive family sized box of chocolates by the sofa looks so endearing. What about the big meals with your family, where grandparents push more and more food on your because you’re a “growing boy”? Or what about the higher number of Christmas parties you are invited to – how can you manage all of these without seeming like a social outcast?

The first thing is to remember my previous point; build a buffer. One day of a less than ideal diet is not going to ruin everything you’ve done so far. A week of chocolate and alcohol definitely will. By building into your schedule the fact that you’re going to eat a fair bit over Christmas, you can offset this eating by making sure your diet is how it should be before and after Christmas. Also, one day of high-calorie intake is potentially pretty good for you, depending on which nutritionists you listen to, as an influx of calories can up-regulate metabolism and make you feel much better. Having a day where you can just relax and eat what you like is also good from a psychological point of view so long as it doesn’t then spill over into Boxing Day and continue until New Year’s Day.

Food over Christmas also doesn’t have to be bad. There is an over-abundance of protein available in the form of turkey, or roast beef or pork. Eating protein increases satiety and could well stop you stuffing your face later in the day. By making sure that you consume protein with every meal, you are less likely to binge eat over the Christmas period. This includes breakfast – protein after a long overnight fast is a good idea. Most people struggle with getting protein in for breakfast, but eggs, or smoked salmon are great ideas.

There are also plenty of vegetables in a traditional Christmas dinner. Loading up your plate with these will make sure you get plenty of micronutrients (a good idea if you’ve forgotten your multivitamin), as well as a load of fiber. This fiber, like protein, will fill you up, making a trip to eat a whole cake from the door of the fridge much less likely (I’ve actually done this). Aim for a wide variety of vegetables, and pick low-sugar cranberry sauce for your condiment of choice – it’s likely to be higher in antioxidants than other sauces.

Christmas is also a good time to get plenty of healthy fats. Meat contains decent levels of fat, usually with a good amount of vitamins and minerals, so load up as much as you need. There also tends to be plenty of nuts lying around, and snacking on these can also be a good idea. Dark chocolate can also be useful – it’s hard to overeat because it is so bitter and contains plenty of antioxidants and polyphenols.

So what to avoid? Well, as an athlete you should moderate your alcohol intake if indeed you choose to consume any at all. Alcohol tends to be quite high in empty calories, and low in nutrients. It can also lead to poor decision-making, which further increases your chances of over-eating.

Hopefully, I have given you some good ideas for how to ensure that Christmas doesn’t have to ruin your training, diet and fitness goals. The main thing is to plan ahead and build a buffer, but always remember to enjoy yourself. Christmas is such a short period that missing training or cheating on your diet doesn’t matter. Instead, take the time to have fun and make the most of a few days off and seeing your family. Merry Christmas!

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

SimpliFaster virtually convened a roundtable of esteemed and experienced jumps coaches to cover a bevy of topics related to jumps. We have been presenting these questions, and their answers, in a series of articles. This is the sixth and last in the series, and covers the topics of training setup and programming style influences on each coach.

SimpliFaster: Can you describe the training setup that you use and who/what would you say influenced your programming style the most?

Travis Geopfert: We set up training blocks that start from our biggest championship meet at the end of the year and work backwards. Ultimately, we spend 70% of our macro-cycle in a general preparation or special preparation phase. Although this is often difficult for athletes to understand, I do believe it’s a big reason for our success late in the year. Our athletes have the discipline and focus required to trust in the process and know that they will be ready during championship season.

Throughout this training calendar we have specific training blocks that are anywhere from 7-21 days long, with intermittent “recovery” weeks periodically built in. The time of year and the phase of training we are in affect what we do in these individual micro-cycles. In very general terms, however, I would say our training in a micro-cycle mostly pairs high-intensity speed and jumping with our lifting days. Then our active recovery and general strength work opposite to that.

There have been numerous strong influences on my personal programming. Doug Case and I work closely together with our jumpers and sprinters in programming almost the entire year. Other strong influences on me in my early coaching days were Kip Janvrin and Cliff Rovelto. They both helped to give me a very good understanding of training cycles and the importance of laying out a “master plan.”

There are numerous other coaches that I’ve gained valuable information from over the years. I’ve benefitted from personal conversations about jumps with Rana Reider, Cliff Rovelto, Boo Schexnayder, Jeremy Fischer, Dan Pfaff, Randy Huntington, Doug Case, Kip Janvrin, Mark Napier, and Steve Lynn, to name a few. These, along with reading literature and watching videos from Tom Tellez and many others, have helped me formulate our Arkansas Training Philosophy.

I believe there is a scientific and an artistic side of coaching. It’s important to know your stuff, but also to read your individual athletes and communicate the plan effectively. ~Travis Geopfert

I believe it’s our responsibility as coaches to educate ourselves and decipher quality information that can continue to help our athletes progress in the sport. I have learned that having a plan is a necessity, from both the above-mentioned jumps coaches, and numerous other coaches including Chris Bucknam here at Arkansas. However, being able to adapt on the fly and make adjustments based on numerous variables is equally important.

I believe there is a scientific and an artistic side of coaching. It’s important to know your stuff, but also to read your individual athletes and communicate the plan effectively. It’s our job as coaches to “think” and communicate in such a way that enables our athletes to trust the process and just go “do.”

Dan Pfaff: I was hugely influenced by my first major mentor, Tom Tellez, so a lot of my fundamental programming concepts came from the way he trained sprinter/jumper combo athletes. During the first 10-15 years of my career, I collected and reverse-engineered training systems from around the world delivered by guys in my evolving network. The bulk of this research was in the late ’70s and all of the ’80s, so pharmacy factors were huge at the time and they heavily influenced the designs, volumes, intensities, and density patterns used in those systems. To surf that issue, a concerted effort was made to study junior and youth-level programming from those countries to establish fundamental curves of load and progression.

I have always worked with multiple event disciplines, large numbers, small support staffs, etc., so I had to evolve systems that addressed these variables. Access to facilities, liability issues, and the cooperation of support staff also influenced the evolution. Time, wisdom, experiences, great athletes, injuries, failed hypotheses, network information, research, and divine intervention have all led me to our current formats. We still tweak and experiment, but not as much as when I was a younger, clueless coach.

In general, we do no GPP-type phases and start out with what folks would most likely call SPP. We use two-week load cycles with the third week an unload on density pattern. We shift to one week on, one week off during the indoor season and then move to a three-day rollover cycle for the outdoor competitive season. We identify KPIs during the preseason induction meetings, rank them in a hierarchy, develop strategies for monitoring and adjustment of these generational factors, and then go to work. It is fluid and athlete-driven. It is deeply tied to sports medicine findings at all times.

The weekly format is fairly common throughout the year. We do acceleration work, power conversion exercises, and a moderate weight room scheme on Mondays. Tuesdays find us doing jump-specific work, various plyometric exercises, and then a shift to parasympathetic work with circuits and special strength exercises. Wednesday is a speed or running technique day, followed by power conversion exercises or plyometrics, and finished off with our most demanding weight room session of the week. Thursday is often an active rest, therapy-driven day, although early in the year many athletes will do designed recovery training. Friday is a jump technique day, followed by throwing power exercises, and then a monitor-driven weight room session. Saturday is an alactic/run technique day for us, with extensive work capacity exercises done post running. We take Sundays off.

Nic Petersen: Typically, Monday is an acceleration day consisting of anywhere from 10m to 40m, but we may go out further depending on the athlete and time of year. This is followed by either a med ball throw series or a simple plyometric exercise.

Tuesday is a mix of technique and speed. We typically do some type of approach development on Tuesdays, followed by a short run technique session. This may be short run long jump, etc. Then we finish with a few absolute speed runs; maybe fly 30m or something similar.

Wednesday is a recovery day. We do an easy jog and strides, most the time in approach rhythm. And we do some restorative work here: yoga, balance, and trigger point therapy.

On Thursday, we come back and do another combination day, with approach work and a technique session followed by some speed. This tends to be a bit longer, but it depends on what we did Monday and Tuesday.

Friday is typically our tempo day. We do this on grass. A lot of times we do circuits as rest.

Jeremy Fischer: My setup for training is very athlete-specific. One athlete may have more or a European setup, and another may have a more typical American setup. USATF coaching education was an early influence on my coaching. They were the first ones to show me that there were different training styles than my college system. They gave me the science and answers to why and how we did things. These names include Boo Schexnayder, Dan Pfaff, Vince Anderson, Dennis Shaver, Vern Gambetta, Gary Winkler, and Cliff Rovelto. Book influences were Bompa, Gambetta, Freeman, and McFarlane.

The art of coaching shows in the variability of training used athlete to athlete, year to year. Share on X

As I grew as a coach, I wanted to know more and learn different thought processes. I started talking to foreign coaches and visiting their training facilities and watching their practices. I watched the Cubans train in Puerto Rico for three days, spent a few days with Wolfgang Ritzdorf at the Cologne Sports Institute, had dinner with Franz Bosch, and talked with and spent time with Nelio Mauro. This gave me a different perspective and I saw how training can vary with the art of coaching—the variability of training we use from athlete to athlete and year to year.

David Kerin: I am a continuing ed student at the Tellez/Pfaff/Schexnayder School of Jumps. From that base, I then apply my experience. My views on training are most traditional in the fall. As the year progresses, I shift away from strict adherence to more commonly accepted work and phasing during indoor and early outdoors. I like to see athletes do just enough traditional work in the weight room to maintain strength levels gained to that point. Testing is important here to determine whether a given strength level has dropped off. Like Dan P’s “Three Day Rollovers,” I believe you can maintain levels with minimal lifting as long as it’s specific.

Between indoor and outdoor, with timing dependent on the length and goals of the outdoor season, I like to remediate to bring strength back up when decline is observed. Back to indoors—I am not a fan of the collegiate, almost-every-weekend competition cycle, and its effect on training and health. I believe in as late a start to indoor competition as possible, and as little indoor competition as possible. The nature and quality of training and adaptation is far better. I will leave more specific periodization and session descriptions to my more distinguished fellow Roundtable participants. My observation is that, once the competition schedule begins, technical components in the athletes’ jumping become harder to adjust.

I believe in as late a start to indoor competition as possible, and as little indoor competition as possible. ~David Kerin

Full approach jumping is impactful, and competition jumping is even more so. Once competition begins, training setup should take this into account, particularly in spring and summer. More specifically, think about recovery time. In the U.S., we have been very good at making people tired; we have only recently started to get better at building them back up.

As for the comparison of U.S. vs. European training models, I believe both have their merits. Rather than thinking that you must reside in only one camp, consider that either could be a sound option for individual athletes at any given time. This could also be viewed as a response to either method by gender, and further, that the deciding factors are health, recovery to maintain it, and travel/competition demands. Between the two models, I generally favor keeping high intensity work bundled by day as opposed to distributed across a week. However, there is merit to the idea of playing with its distribution, particularly when tempering a jumper for an Olympic trial or international competition’s Q round and finals on separate days.

Nick Newman: Dan Pfaff and Boo Schnexnayder have influenced my training philosophy the most. I have spent time with and/or conversed with many other coaching greats over the past 10 or so years as well. The likes of Randy Huntington, Tudor Bompa, John Crotty, Jeremy Fischer, Pete Stanley, Gary Bourne, and Nelio Moura must be mentioned, as they have all personally shared their knowledge with me.

Early in my athletic career, I spent a great deal of time dissecting and experimenting with the training programs of many coaches. Although this likely hurt my career as a jumper, it helped my coaching career tremendously. This, along with endless reading and observing of great coaches and athletes, has served as the basis of my philosophy on all aspects of programming and coaching. Over the years, my beliefs evolved into the training system that I use today.

In a nutshell, my training philosophy can be described as holistic, adaptive, and specific.

Generally, I use a high dose of specific training all year, with each component of the program carefully progressed from specific to ultra-specific. I use three-step loading patterns throughout the preparation period. The first phase of training is four weeks in length, using forward step loading with a drop-in load during the fourth week. As specificity increases, we remain with forward step loading but switch to three-week phases with a drop-in load occurring every third week. During ultra-specific or specialized training phases, we use a four-week phase with a reverse step-loading pattern and decreasing loads from weeks two through four.

Throughout the preparation mesocycle, the weekly setup stays fairly consistent. Mondays are inertia days with accelerations, bounding, and moderate to heavy weights. Tuesday is a technical jumps, drills, and circuit day. Wednesday is speed and power development. Thursday is technical or pool recovery work. Friday is resisted or assisted speed, assisted jumps, and special weight training. Saturday is extensive and intensive tempo, or speed endurance, endurance bounding, and circuits. Sunday is rest.

Competition phases see extremely flexible and individual-based programming. Generally speaking, competition weeks will see a neuromuscular heavy hitter day, a couple of general recovery days, and a technical focus day.

Randy Huntington:

a.m./p.m.
M Acc – MaxS
T Speed – UbS
W Speed endurance (ASSE or GSSE) or temp – Rest
Th As Monday, with small variations – Rest
F Jumps day – Power
Sa Long speed endurance (SE)
S Rest

Brian Brillon: I use alternating neuro days followed by a general themed day of training. I would say that I have been more influenced in the training pedagogy by Boo Schexnayder, Dan Pfaff, Mike Young, and Vern Gambetta. I have found that this type of training works best with the goals that need to be met in the collegiate setting. There are occasions that we have had to bend the rules due to schedules, but if you can foresee these conflicts, it is important to budget your week correctly in training.

For instance, in a typical week, Monday will be neuro followed by a general day. We would typically see acceleration modalities done on Monday, with technique and general themes set for Tuesday. If I do runways on a Tuesday, I will budget my Monday practice with volume to complement the runways on Tuesday. I try to think of the “train today so that you can train tomorrow” mantra when writing sessions.

The first week in the four-week cycle would see a technical-themed week, followed by a speed week, then an endurance/work capacity week, and ending with a rest/test week. I have found that this rotational system worked well at all the levels I have coached. It keeps the athlete able to express the power outputs important for the event, without many overtraining symptoms. I want the athlete to always feel that the base of their training is speed and power.

I follow a short-to-long philosophy with the training of speed. Before I coached them, some of my athletes had coaches who used the long-to-short philosophy in their training of speed, and they never felt like they gained speed. Some athletes felt it was just a grind to see how many reps and sets they could do. When they became aware of their speed capabilities earlier in the year, these athletes felt that they achieved more beneficial training and saw greater successes.

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

SimpliFaster virtually convened a roundtable of esteemed and experienced jumps coaches to cover a bevy of topics related to jumps. We have been presenting these questions, and their answers, in a series of articles. This is the fourth in the series, and covers the topic of testing protocols for jumpers.

SimpliFaster: How do you assess the key physical qualities you are aiming to develop from your program? What specific testing protocol do you use and when do you implement it? In your experience, what testing and test result combinations seem to provide the most accurate depiction of event-specific readiness? Are there specific testing numbers that you use as a guide? If you don’t use a specific testing protocol, can you discuss how you evaluate your athletes and program throughout preparation and competition time?

Travis Geopfert: In the horizontal jumps, specifically, we periodically test our standing long jump and 10-meter fly. Although our jumpers don’t fully realize it, I am consistently monitoring their 10-meter fly almost weekly in conjunction with different drills that we do. Additionally, we often test our triple jumpers in a standing triple jump and 5 bound test to measure power output.

I like the testing protocol of a three-step vertical in the high jump and, admittedly, I need to more consistently test that. However, we do have 15 years of SLJ, STJ, and 5 bound testing to compare to and assess an athlete’s readiness. Obviously, when an athlete has a best or near best in one of these three, you know their power output is there. If an athlete is under one second (10 meters/second) in the 10-meter fly, they are ready to do big things.

I know it’s kind of odd, but I also believe I can see in my head when an athlete is ready, based on their ground contact time even in the simplest movements. I’ve watched guys do basic warm-up sprint drills in their flats numerous times and said to myself, “They’re ready.”

Dan Pfaff: We feel like everything we have on the menu addresses physical qualities and needs monitoring of some sort. If we have selected the right KPI factors and ranked them properly, the data pools should show a positive trend over time, both for the entity in question and the overall competition effort. The density of consistency should also show a positive trend in these subsets and performances.

Determining the KPIs comes from experience, in my opinion, and short experience, and using a system from a trusted mentor or set of mentors will give you a sound platform to study from. Obviously, acceleration abilities, top end speed parameters, and jump-specific metrics are main drivers for this process. We use a generational grid for training qualities and first generational work gets the strictest analysis and data collection time.

One overlooked and under-analyzed physical quality is athlete health over time. I see the same injuries and illness factors occurring with the same athletes and at the same time of the season far too often. It is not bad luck. It is a failure to monitor and seek solutions.

I used to have dedicated testing blocks and time frames when I was a younger coach. Frustration and poor statistical patterns led me away from this approach. We now do most of our testing at comps in the form of film analysis and actual results. We test training menu items during the cycle within the prescribed programming format and perform various medical tests daily; sometimes before training, sometimes during training, and quite often post training. We never do one-off, ad hoc testing. If we cannot test it often and consistently, then it is not tested.

The No. 1 test for me is how athletes execute during competitions. Seeing a positive trend on defined metrics is critical for readiness analysis. The same goes for consistency of meet results both within the comp and over the season. We find approach velocities and accuracy of approach readings to be solid predictors. The ability to consistently program shapes during the entire approach is also another KPI factor but, for some reason, it’s not a keynote for many athletes or coaches.

We also have formulas that will evolve over time for each athlete with the various short run jump parameters in training. Distance jumped on the SRJ is weighted against accuracy and technical landmark execution grades. So, a huge jump with a foul and poor posture during the penultimate step would have a lower grade value. A gassed-up 12-step jump with poor shapes but a huge distance would likewise be graded down. Accountability to the agreed-upon dynamics is critical and not often managed well.

We have grids we use as the season plays out that show how early season meets feed mid-season results, and how that leads to culminating results at the end. We do not chase absolute result progressions in our competitions. We can’t control poor facilities, adverse weather, travel disasters, life stressors timing, etc. Therefore, we demand that athletes keep records of headwind PRs, cold weather PRs, crosswind PRs, extreme heat PRs, fast runway PRs, slow runway PRs, 1-meter board PRs, 3-meter board PRs, time of season PRs, sick as a dog PRs, jetlagged PRs, family chaos PRs, etc.

Nic Petersen: We use a few different tests in our program. But, in all honesty, we don’t test very often and not at all during competitive cycles.

Our main tests are the following:

Standing Long Jump

• Men: 3.20 and beyond
• Women: 2.70 and beyond

Standing Triple Jump

• Men: 10m is the goal; 11m elite
• Women: 8m is the goal; 9m elite

Standing 5 Bounds

• We use this as a guide. What an athlete jumps in this is about what they are capable of triple jumping.

Fly 30m

• Men: sub 2.85, goal 2.80 or below
• Women: sub 3.20, goal 3.10 or below

Fly 100m

• Men: sub 9.90
• Women: sub 11

Overhead Backwards/Underhand Forwards Shot Throw

We do some of the Quad testing and we score the four events. We try to Quad test three times, especially in the fall: once after the first six weeks, once after 12, and then right before we leave for Christmas break. However, one thing about testing is that we only rest for testing once, and that’s after the first six weeks. Other than that, we may test and not be fresh. Therefore, some people may not believe this is true testing.

We also measure some basic short jumps. I test the 10-step long jump, and we also test the four-step HOP HOP STEP JUMP (gator drill). We use these as mock competitions, so these get heated and people will get after it. We compete during short run sessions on occasions where we may not measure things, but just mark jumps and see how far we can go. I try and use competition a lot.

I think testing is a good gauge for fitness and speed, but not everyone is a good tester. The thing about testing is, if you don’t do the tests a lot, you need to teach the tests too. I would say some of my “tests” are more about taking specific training tasks and completing them than “pure” testing.

While testing is a good gauge for fitness and speed, you often need to teach the tests, too. Share on X

Jeremy Fischer: I use testing protocol and analysis all the time. Of course, there is the standard Max Jones test (30-meter standing long jump, standing three jump, overhead shot), with the addition of underhand shot and a 150-meter. We do analysis with the 30-meter fly, laser analysis of runway speed, five-meter segment runway analysis, weight room strength analysis, power analysis using Keiser equipment, force plate testing of takeoff, force plate analysis of phase force, blood analysis, saliva cortisol level testing, sleep analysis, and FMS.

The data allows for me to keep tabs on training and the progression of training, and also maintain a check and balance on training. I know when to push harder or back off training. As far as preparedness of athletes for meets, that is the million-dollar question.

I start to see some regularities from athlete to athlete, but for the most part it’s what they are doing in practice that shows me preparation readiness. Are they executing their technical positions and how far or how high are they jumping? If an athlete jumps far in practice, they jump far in the meet. If they run fast or bound far in practice, then they jump well in the meet. And, finally, they must be as healthy as possible when they’re on the start line or runway.

David Kerin: Meet performance is the ultimate test. We need to eliminate the learning curve to tests before their results can be valued. A competitive environment provides greater value to testing’s results. The legendary LSU Fall Jumps Testing is a good example. The accuracy of data collected and accurate record keeping in the present, for the year, over an athlete career, and over a coaching career are all important.

Yes, over the years there are benchmark testing numbers that have been shown to equate to event performance levels, but like the “special exercise” question, there is no magic bullet. As stated above, meet performances are the ultimate test. If I had to choose a favorite test, I like OHBs for their traditional value. But I see further value in that I can instruct to the medball or shot as being reflective of an athlete’s COM and the rise of the implement simulating the rise of the COM. More specifically, I like OHBs for high jumpers because of the reflection of in-flight positions during mid to late throw.

The opposite of this is also found in high jump. Every year or so (going back to the ’80s for me and Michael Cooper of the LA Lakers), there is an article about how the NBA dunk champion would be a world-class high jumper. These erroneous statements have roots in their author’s misconception of the mission as discussed earlier. For a specific example, and to bring it back to testing and physical assessment, consider Dwight Stones. He was a holder of the world record for MHJ at heights that would still be competitive today. Yet he has admitted that his measured SVJ was only around 30 inches.

Nick Newman: The key physical qualities I look for include the ability to accelerate smoothly and explosively, maximum speed capabilities, reactive strength and maximum power outputs, simple and complex coordination, and overall freedom of movement. It is essential to monitor these qualities as often as possible throughout the year. Both subjective and objective assessments occur daily in some regard.

As far as specific testing protocols, I have previously fallen victim to the temptation of systematically testing everything I could think of. Collecting data is fun, as are the testing sessions themselves. However, over time I realized many of the tests were redundant and correlations with performance were inconsistent. I also found that too-frequent or overly rigorous testing protocols can take the edge off competition intensity and focus.

As a result, I shifted toward a testing protocol that could occur during regular training sessions. As the training emphasis progresses throughout the year, so does the testing. The most important test, of course, is full-approach jumping during competition.

The tests I use, along with the corresponding elite standards, are as follows:

As previously mentioned, I have used many tests over the years. I have found that the ones in the chart are the most relevant and correlated best with event performance.

Speed testing with the 30-meter and 10-meter fly blends to full-approach 11m-6m, and 6m-1m assessments closer to competition. Bounding tests gradually increase entry running steps, as this coincides with my horizontal plyometric training progressions. Short-approach jump testing gradually increases in stride number and can reach up to four to five strides shy of the athlete’s full approach.

During competition periods, we maintain max strength whenever possible with very short weight-testing sessions as we’ll assess speed, bounding, and power output numbers when possible.

Randy Huntington: I use only a few testing protocols these days, although I measure almost everything. I still use a 30-meter fly for speed and a 5R 5L from six steps distance for jumping. I also continually monitor the speed of the last two five-meter segments in approach year-round.

I test Omegawave every morning with each athlete. Using this, along with observation and listening, I then change the workouts accordingly.

Brian Brillon: When I coach jumps, I look for the expression of speed and power in the athlete. We stress these components daily in training. I use a revolving four microcycle, with the fourth week as a testing week. We drop the volumes that week and have the athletes compete against their teammates and their personal bests in a battery of tests.

I believe competition in practice is a must before you go “under the lights.” Not only does this provide opportunities to showcase expressive elements of the event, but it also gives rise to meet scenarios. That fourth week sees testing in the standing long jump, standing triple jump, double-double, overhead back shot toss, between the legs forward shot toss, 30-meter three-point stance, and 30-meter fly with a 20-meter acceleration. When we get into the specific prep and comp phase, we also do an intersquad short-approach jump competition.

I believe competition in practice is a must before you go ‘under the lights.’ Share on X

I think all the tests give the athlete the confidence to see the progression provided by the training. The specific test that I see give rise to the most accurate depiction of the event is the short-approach jump. The test jumps are from 12 to 13 strides out because I find that the jumper can add on a foot and a half to two feet from there to what their full-approach jump would be. It gives the athlete a ballpark figure that gets them excited for things to come.

For example, I had a freshman that wasn’t understanding the concept of a competitive practice. I challenged him by saying what he would jump in testing would be two feet off from what a full approach would be. Previously, the athlete was jumping 21 feet from 12 strides in practice. His full-approach jumps in competition were a foot and a half more than his 12-stride marks. A week before Big Tens, the athlete jumped 23 feet 2 inches from 12 strides. He became the Big Ten champion a week later, with a jump of 25 feet 2 inches.

Tomorrow we’ll feature the next installment of this Jumps Roundtable series: “Approach Accuracy.”

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

SimpliFaster virtually convened a roundtable of esteemed and experienced jumps coaches to cover a bevy of topics related to jumps. We will be presenting these questions, and their answers, in a series of articles. This is the third in the series, and covers the topic of individual training programs for jumpers.

SimpliFaster: Several key physical qualities determine success in the jumping events. However, it is common for jumpers of similar meet performances to possess different ratios of these qualities. How do you (or how would you in an ideal world) manipulate individual training programs based on your athlete’s strengths and weaknesses?

Travis Geopfert: We think it’s important from the very beginning to assess where our athletes stand in terms of basic movement patterns. Our athletic trainer, Cole Peterson, does a fantastic job of evaluating the basic movement functions of all our incoming jumpers. If there is a deficiency or weakness in any specific area, we create a plan to correct that right away. Nobody is perfect and everybody has something that they can work on in terms of functional movement, mobility, and strength. As we personalize these plans and see proficiency, it allows us to add speed and power and then we can move on from there.

For example, Clive Pullen and Jarrion Lawson are two very different but great athletes who, over time, had functional improvement in several basic things. As both proved they could handle it, we were able to add some key training elements that allowed them to succeed at the highest level. In general terms, the plans capitalized on Jarrion’s speed in the long jump and Clive’s power in the triple jump. Their individual training plans were VERY different. However, I believe they were highly effective specific to their individual strengths and weaknesses. Having said that, however, we first started with basic functional movement patterns and strength level assessment that allowed us to then layer on the training they needed over the course of three to four years.

Dan Pfaff: That is the art of coaching. Determining the KPI factors for each athlete and then ordering them in a hierarchy is a never-ending project for the coach. The KPI factors can change in type and order during the career or even the season. They differ based on biomotor factors, anthropometrics, training history, etc. There are generalities for this, but I think it’s dangerous to reduce these items into a formula.

In truth, programming is a hypothesis. You build out a program, run it, monitor it, and then formulate a new hypothesis based on evidence gained. I think it is a major error to tilt the table towards weaknesses. We like to polish strengths always and often, while slowly filling in the gaps in deficiencies and voids. I have seen way too many athletes destroyed on the “we can fix this weakness and then you will soar” train. If the athlete is healthy and enjoying the process, then we are on the right path. Disinterest and burnout are red flags that my ego has gotten in the way. Sometimes a weakness is a defense mechanism and should not be attacked directly.

If an athlete is disinterested or burnt out, it is a red flag that a coach’s ego got in the way. Share on X

Nic Petersen: Speed is always a cornerstone of everything we do. We train acceleration all year and we are always trying to become mechanically and technically better in everything we do. That being said, every athlete is different and must be treated accordingly. Not everyone can handle large training loads, or large doses of speed endurance. So, I have a template for the week, month, year, etc., and I plug and play different sessions and workouts based around the theme of the adaptation I am trying to elicit.

An example would be if we have a max velocity day. One athlete might do a fly 30 with a 30-meter run in, one may do a fly 20 with a 30-meter run in, and someone else may do a 100-meter fly with a 20-meter run in. This is all based on what is best for each individual athlete and their own strengths and weakness.

We do the same in technique as well. We may have short jump session in long jump. One athlete may go from 12 steps. One athlete may go from eight. One might go off a box. And yet, everyone is working on some of the same things.

In general, I would say that we train to our strengths much more than our weaknesses. We address weaknesses and try and make them better, but I like to make sure we do what people like to do, and what works best for them. Some of my athletes need to jump a lot to maintain rhythm and jump well. Others can jump very little and compete at a high level. As coaches, we must figure out what works best for every athlete and use those skills.

Jeremy Fischer: I think that all training plans are, and must be, malleable. While a rigid structure is good for younger, less-advanced athletes, but the more advanced, higher-level athletes need a solid foundation with adaptation and flexibility to be successful. You might have two 17-meter triple jumpers, and one is a power athlete with great strength while the other is a power athlete with much more elasticity and a relative lower overall strength capacity. It is easy to say, “Make the power athlete stronger and the strength athlete more elastic,” but it’s not as easy as just applying this generalization. The art of implementation is making sure you address the weakness but not at the cost of their strengths.

The art of implementation is addressing an athlete’s weakness without ignoring their strengths. Share on X

David Kerin: A quick answer would be that it’s not unlike training a multi-eventer. This means, look at where your time is best spent. In the multi events, it’s often how good you are in your weaker events that determines the final outcome. High jump is a great jumps-specific example to look at this question. Clearly, there is advantage to a higher standing COM and longer levers. Yet, Stefan Holm and, more recently, Inika McPherson have had success in an event that would appear to not favor their morphology.

Staying with high jump, Dr. James Becker and I had the good fortune to capture three different jumpers make 2.40+ jumps in 2014. We did this while filming the top U.S. jumpers at the same meets. Under 3-D analysis, many things stood out. First and foremost, the three athletes (Mutaz Essa Barshim, Bohdan Bondarenko, and Derek Drouin) all were traveling 8 meters per second or better at the plant. Second, in fully analyzed jumps, neither Jesse Williams nor Dusty Jonas ever breaks 8 meters per second and Erik Kynard almost never does. Correspondingly, none have broken into the 2.40 club. Regardless of a given athlete’s background and gifts, physics are universal.

However, I just read a quote by an elite jumper’s coach, stating that his athlete’s approach is purposefully slow. However, we have data that shows this is not the case. You must understand “Job 1,” and know your athlete’s strengths and weaknesses first if you want to effect positive change.

There are minimum data points required at a given performance level. Horizontal velocity, degree of conversion, and orientation of the COM are big ones common to all jumps. For a horizontal jumps reference, who was the faster athlete, Carl Lewis or Mike Powell? As we all know, maximum achievable velocity is not optimal velocity in the jumps. What does matter is the velocity at the moment of the last grounding.

I see Mike Powell’s execution of the penultimate as the key to his world record jump. I won’t go further into it, but pull up his Tokyo jump on YouTube and see what you think. My purpose in bringing it up is that I think it’s one of the best examples of addressing strengths and weaknesses in the jumps.

Nick Newman: I touched on this topic during Question One and can elaborate here. Over time, it becomes clear that certain factors drive certain athletes.
Generally, you have three types of elite jumpers: tall and slim with long limbs and long tendons, shorter and slightly thicker with more muscular size and shorter tendons, and those that fall somewhere in the middle. You can group your jumpers into one of these categories fairly easily.

Again, these are general categorizations and every individual is different. However, you can make solid expectations once you understand the type of athlete you are working with. Don’t kill yourself trying to develop your tall, slim, tendon-driven jumper to 2x body weight deep squatting. Instead, focus on her elastic qualities, strength, and specific ROM. Likewise, an athlete who doesn’t have tremendous advantages with their tendon structure would perhaps benefit from more muscular-based strength and power.

The general notion here is that, for the most part, focusing on an athlete’s weaknesses is a mistake. Their natural development processes drive their strengths. Therefore, it makes far more sense to carefully nurture those aspects than to pursue unnatural pathways. An understanding of what makes the individual successful in the first place should heavily influence their program design.

Randy Huntington: This is the hardest question to answer and I’m not sure any scientific answer would be accurate. I use Omegawave to see if athletes are adapting to training loads or not, and I listen and observe. Additionally, we do deep water pool recovery and massage every day to enhance recovery. Sports medicine in China is not very advanced, so we do what we can.

Brian Brillon: I believe 8-meter jumps are the standard for males at the collegiate level. In my coaching experience, I have never seen a slow 8-meter jumper. Therefore, I focus my training for the jumpers to travel at or over 10 meters per second. I see many good high school jumpers load up on their penultimate step to jump far. You can get away with that in high school, but as the athlete progresses, you must help the athlete get faster and feel comfortable with that speed.

My athletes have heard me say numerous times in training that you must get comfortable getting uncomfortable. This new speed that they will apply to their jumping will make them feel like they aren’t achieving the height that they were accustomed to, but in time the added velocity off the board will produce better distances.

Most of the time, I get the athlete to run faster through takeoff, but an important factor is the takeoff angle. To manipulate an athlete’s takeoff angle, I use shorter approaches with less horizontal velocity to train more of a vertical velocity. With these slower velocities used in short approaches, the athlete can produce force longer on the ground to achieve greater vertical forces to enhance takeoff angles. We will progressively add more steps to bleed in more horizontal velocity. We strive to bleed in both horizontal and vertical velocities during the progression of the season.

Tomorrow we’ll feature the next installment of this Jumps Roundtable series: “Testing Protocols for Jumpers.”

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

 

SimpliFaster virtually convened a roundtable of esteemed and experienced jumps coaches to cover a bevy of topics related to jumps. We will be presenting these questions, and their answers, in a series of articles. This is the second in the series, and covers the topic of technical training for jumpers.

SimpliFaster: Technical training for jumpers can take on many forms and can be either overly complex or simple. What is your philosophy on technical training? How do you establish a technical model with individual athletes? What is the general construct of your technical sessions?

Travis Geopfert: Overall, I believe our technical training is pretty simple. Ultimately, everything we do is a technical session. We are consistently reminding our athletes about the basics, whether that be in the warmup, interval training, specific technical sessions, or even the cool down. In track and field there are some fundamental rules across all events that I believe are imperative to success.

The first and most important, in my opinion, is postural integrity. Keeping our body upright and in good position to produce maximum power output in all the jumping and sprinting events is something that we are constantly working on. Hurdle mobility, sprint drills, acceleration drills, flight phase sprint mechanics, circle drills, bounding sequences, box jumps, hurdle hops—you name it. Across the board, in every session we do, we always want to have our torso upright and our hips underneath us to strike the ground with as much force as possible.

Postural integrity is fundamental to success in track and field events. Share on X

That proper foot strike on the ground is something that we are always looking at in all jumps. Where our foot is in relation to our center of gravity is something that we are always evaluating in every sprint contact and takeoff that we do. These two things, along with a strong emphasis on rhythm, are the three fundamentals that I believe most of our technical sessions break down too.

Our technical sessions focus on three fundamentals: postural integrity, proper foot strike, rhythm. Share on X

In terms of individualizing practice, every athlete certainly has different strengths and weaknesses that need to be understood and addressed. That, in a nutshell, is our philosophy: Build on our strengths and progressively eliminate our weaknesses. However, every technical model that we work on comes down to one thing, and that is creating consistency. If we can establish strong patterns of quality posture, foot contact, and rhythm in all our jumps, then we are giving ourselves a good chance at having success from a technical standpoint. Then, as we continue to develop and add speed and power, we have the foundation that can handle and convert it effectively.

Dan Pfaff: I have not had a lot of success with drills as executed by many leading jump coaches worldwide. I find it much more productive to do systematic teaching progressions of the actual jump itself. I prefer to do real-time, real-task motor education work. We teach towards a biomechanically sound model based on the common denominators noted in world-class men and women jumpers.

We teach runway approach dynamics at all times, using acceleration, speed, and alactic sessions as classroom time to implement the shapes and components of the approach. We start actual runway construction by late November and work on it once to twice weekly all season long. We demand steering and targeting accuracy from Day 1, and hold athletes very accountable for this and the biomechanical landmark executions.

For jump-specific work, we start out with four to six step jumps with and without landings. We teach unique postures for each step of the short run jump and demand sound execution of penultimate and takeoff mechanisms. I think too many athletes and coaches use short run jumps with faulty postures, contact times, flight times, and poor acceleration curves. In turn, this can create serious viruses that are difficult to eradicate when one goes back to longer approach runs and jumps.

As mastery progresses, step numbers increase. We do the bulk of our jump-specific training from 10-14 steps depending on skill levels, time of year, and health factors. We do technical training specifics twice a week. I go to younger athletes three times a week, because their resilience factors are higher and forces generally cause less stress on joints and connective tissues for that age group.

Nic Petersen: Technique is very important. I believe that the more technical you are at your event, the easier it is to compete at a high level. When you’re more technically proficient, it keeps you healthier through training and competitions. I also believe technique is an individual thing. Each person is different and each person has their own strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, we need to tailor the technical model around and toward every individual. I say all the time that I coach the person, not the event. I don’t want to have a technical model that doesn’t fit the person—trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, so to speak.

I coach the individual, not the event. Technical models are tailored to help every athlete succeed. Share on X

From there I try and keep the technical model as simple as possible to ensure the athlete can be as successful as possible. While we tailor that simple model to each athlete’s individual strengths and weakness, I would say we train strengths much more than weaknesses. Don’t get me wrong—we fix weaknesses—but I don’t want to spend so much time fixing somewhat that it takes away from what makes the athlete fly.

My technical sessions vary throughout the year as to what we are working on, but we are always doing basic technical stuff year ’round. We start small, doing very easy technical components. We do drills that may mimic specific parts of jumps but, as a rule, I like to do more technical training of the whole versus the part. Take the long jump, for instance. We start working on basic penultimate drills in Week One and we progress to short jumps from a very short run and move the run back. For a technique session, specifically, if we have a specific issue or theme we are trying to work, then we train that technical theme throughout the session.

Jeremy Fischer: Technical training should follow the pattern of simple to complex, and low intensity to high intensity, and always follow a movement pattern of efficiency and accuracy. As the season begins, we do technical training that has low intensity and trains the kinematic chain and muscle recruitment patterns. In essence, we prepare the body to handle greater forces at higher velocities. I believe in training the reactive strength, pushing the capacities of the tendon-ligament-muscle sensory (GTO, muscle/spindle, Pacinian corpuscles) farther, and creating a motor learning pattern that enables coordination of appendages.

We again analyze the technical deficiencies of each athlete—there are basic technical models we accept as a baseline and each athlete changes or adjusts their model based on potential success and efficiency for the future. I believe all correct technical models are first created with proper running posture and form. We do not move onto any advanced technical models until the athlete can run correctly. Once we’ve established a good running model, then we can establish a set of drills or sequencing of technical training to match any technical deficiencies.

David Kerin: What are the general and specific demands of the event? Jumps require horizontal velocity; an optimized force vector viewed at the COM’s position prior to grounding of last foot through ground release. There are in-flight considerations as well, but let’s leave that for now. They need to accelerate optimally and to apply the resultant kinetic energy developed optimally.

Years ago, Brooks Johnson coined the term, “the Critical Zone,” when speaking about races and field events. The concept is a good one in that there would appear to be a pivotal moment in an event. But that moment does not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it is dependent on the moments that precede it. Honoring Newtonian realities, a competitive effort is a linked series of moments, each building on the earlier. Hence, my philosophy on technical training is one of sequential mastery beginning at the start of an attempt.

However, the athletes I work with and/or advise most often have a personal coach, so my support takes the form of patching holes as opposed to building a better dam. Ideally, I would like to see optimal approach initiation and elimination of stylistic components. Acceleration and postural integrity should be optimal as the athlete progresses thru the run-up. In the event area, I spend the most time with (high jump), I can usually trace failed attempts back to flawed executions in the early and or mid approach. While vaulters often clear high bars from less-than-optimal takeoffs (inside or “under” at plant), the other jumping events don’t have a pole to ameliorate things.

As far as technical sessions, I find myself favoring less full-approach work in practice and, for that matter, short-approach or so called “part-whole” work. Take away the 99th percentile athlete and the beginners. With the pool of athletes that’s left, the biggest fish to fry are the earlier discussed misconceptions about jumping, and specific strength, posture, and athleticism. When you spend a lot of time trying to fix technique without first addressing these issues, the time is misspent and injuries often happen. There needs to be work on technique, of course, but in the proper global perspective.

This is a challenge, given our development system here in the U.S. Many nations look longingly at NCAA programs, as having no costs for our national team. But there IS a cost.

How many NCAA jumping event coaches are head coaches at their school? Not many, so we are talking about assistant coaches accountable to a head coach. Now take a highly recruited high school athlete; one who comes to college with a PR that is certain to score at the conference championships and perhaps at the NCAA Championships. In your role, you determine that the individual is getting by on talent and not mastery. Because of this, you know that they have an increased risk for injury. It is your belief that, given the right set of circumstances, they could see international success in their event in the future.

How many head coaches are going to be agreeable when you tell them that this full-ride kid, who has certain conference meet points and is a likely multiple All American, would be best served by purposeful under-performing or not performing for six to 18 months while you detrain the faulty program they came to you with? And that’s before adding in the typical physical strength and athleticism development needs. Not having a collegiate affiliation, it’s easy for me to say this, while a college coach needs to balance a number of concerns. I am just suggesting that you look at the facts and come up with a plan that considers an individual’s athletic career and their four-year college career, along with the season and or year at hand.

Many coaches tend to rush through developmental phases. When an athlete shows an initial adaptation to, or correction of, a technical concept, many coaches take that as the signal to move on to bigger and better things. True mastery requires stabilization of technique. Another concern regarding technique instruction is the statement, “I can’t coach what I can’t see.”

In the later piece, “Jumps Roundtable: Approach Accuracy,” I speak to athletes who are challenged by visuospatial skills. Here the problem is a coach lacking in the same skill set. Go and search for “mental rotations test” on Google. After taking a few of these tests, how did you do? If the answer is “not so good,” then as a professional it behooves you to seek out the means to improve and or accommodate that status.

I believe that the best coaches have three-dimensional vision/recall. The use of video replay is one way to level the playing field. I am a big fan of video use by coaches, but not by athletes because I have a fundamental concern with reinforcing a faulty motor program by showing someone their faulty motor program. However, for coaches it’s a way to pick up on things not observed in live action.

I am a fan of coaches using video replay to see things they missed, but athletes shouldn’t use it. Share on X

Nick Newman: I’ll address the use of technical models first. Although each athlete has different physical qualities and anthropometric measurements, there are several technical consistencies among elite jumpers. I routinely use approach, takeoff, and landing models, and have narrowed it down to three to four per event that I find ideal for most jumpers.

Technical jump and approach sessions make up a large chunk of my jumpers’ training programs. They provide an essential link between the training components and event-specific performance.

Technical teaching and transfer happens within almost every aspect of the program and, while specific technical sessions don’t always involve jumping into the pit, they should remain specific to the requirements of the event.

Components of the program, such as acceleration and speed development, multi-
jump and multi-throw training, weight lifting, tempo running, hurdle mobility, and, of course, technical jump sessions can all emphasize important aspects of technique.
The following are examples of teaching emphasis and possible transfer:

• 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.

Approach development is of major importance, of course. I have written a lot on how to improve approach accuracy both from a skill and psychological perspective. We begin establishing the approach early in preparation and continue to perfect it throughout the competitive season. As no two approaches will ever be the same, the kinesthetic awareness developed through training far outweighs the importance of check marks and other uniform methods.

Technical development for the takeoff, flight, and landing mechanics are practiced early and often. Although there are many options for drills and exercises, I generally keep technical sessions very simple and specific. I personally do not find the majority of drills useful or transferable.

I have a systematic approach to progressing short approach jumps. Generally, during short approach sessions, the approach length increases during preparation and begins the blend with full approach development. However, it is rarely smooth sailing regarding progressions and if an athlete is not achieving the required positioning, timing, and outcome, then a digression will take place.

I personally do not find the majority of drills useful or transferable.</block quote>

Ideally, we start technical jumps at four steps and gradually progress to four to six steps shy of the full approach number. Full takeoffs without landings will always occur during full approach practice while on the runway. Gradually introducing more speed to technical jumps while remaining in touch with full speed approaches is a great way of blending performance and technique and, over time, enables kinesthetic development awareness qualities.

A short approach technical session during early preparation may include the following:

• Video review of technical model related to the session goals
• Part Technique – Breaking down 1-2 aspects of technique (15-20 mins)
  • Skip knee drives
  • Takeoffs from low box with knee drive hold and posture emphasis
• Whole Technique – Short approach jumps – (Board Accuracy included)
  • 4 stride approach – Takeoff and hold position – 4x
  • 6 stride approach – Takeoff and land – 4-6x

Randy Huntington: My technical models in jumps are an extension of proper sprinting. Athletes learn to sprint first and then integrate the sprinting into the approaches with integration tools such as sleds, 1080 Sprint, weighted vests, ankle and wrist weights. Of course, they also learn to break the approach down into its parts and reconstruct the whole approach over time. In the long jump, we aim for understanding visual control/steering and integrating it as quickly as we can through various drills. Our focus is on posture position and action at the appropriate distance from the board to execute a proper takeoff. In the triple jump we do the same thing, with two additional factors: the posture difference and board position at takeoff.

Brian Brillon: Technical training should be viewed as the body striving to move in a fluid state with the least amount of deviation from Sir Isaac Newton’s laws. The technical model should start slow, with a progressive mindset. My athletes would tell you that I say, “If you can’t do it at zero miles an hour, you can’t do it at 100 miles an hour.” We will bleed the technical aspects faster when the athlete becomes proficient at solid reps with a distinct change in their form.

I start technical training for the jumps on Day One. I look for foot patterns at takeoff with simple skipping drills that lead to progressive bounding skills. I then look at posture on the track and in flight. I believe if posture is not correct then the limbs will not move with efficiency in flight. The technical model must fit the needs of the athlete to achieve high levels in the sport.

I start technical training for the jumps on Day One.</block quote>

Technical training requires some form of mental training to the athlete. Over-thinking technique can be the death of the athleticism for an athlete. Care must be taken to ensure that athletes don’t change technique too close to major competitions. It is imperative that they are strong “under the lights” of competition. Too often in technical sessions the athlete becomes paralyzed with analysis. As a coach, you must find simple cues for the athlete to perform complex movements. And the more that you can give external cues instead of internal cues, the more you can help the athlete perform a given task.

For example, if an athlete is struggling to get their knee up off the board in takeoff, try not to focus on the body part, but what action you want. A sample cue could be “explode from the ground” or “accelerate towards the sky.” Saying this could get the athlete to do the action necessary outside the body; to facilitate the body getting naturally into the correct position. A coach should have an idea of what they are looking for in their technical model and explain to the athlete how to achieve this. If the alignment of coach and athlete is in sync, great things can happen.

Tomorrow we’ll feature the next installment of this Jumps Roundtable series: “Individual Training Programs for Jumpers.”

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

 

 

 

SimpliFaster virtually convened a roundtable of esteemed and experienced jumps coaches to cover a bevy of topics related to jumps. We will be presenting these questions, and their answers, in a series of articles. This is the first in the series, and covers the topic of weight training and “special exercises” for jumpers.

Roundtable Biographies

Travis Geopfert: Travis Geopfert is the Horizontal Jumps Coach at the University of Arkansas. In his 13 seasons as coach, the team has had 10 NCAA National Champions (four long jump, two triple jump, one high jump, one combined-event, one 100-meters, and one 200-meters), 67 First Team All-Americans, 121 NCAA national qualifiers, 69 Conference champions, 132 All-Conference performances, three Olympians, and three World Championship qualifiers.

Dan Pfaff: Coach Dan Pfaff tutored 49 Olympians, including nine medalists, 51 World Championship competitors (also nine medalists), and five world-record holders. He directed athletes to 57 national records across a multitude of events.

Dan served on five Olympic Games coaching staffs in five different countries and nine World Championships staffs for six different countries. He lectured in 27 countries and is published in more than 20 countries. During his NCAA coaching career, Dan coached 29 NCAA individual national champions and 150 All-Americans, and was a lead staff member on teams that have won 17 NCAA National Team Championships—fifteen women and two men.

Dan joined the World Athletics Center as Education Director and Lead Jumps Coach in March of 2013, after a successful three-year stint in London with UK Athletics, where he coached long jumper Greg Rutherford to Olympic gold.

Nic Petersen: Nic Petersen is the current Horizontal Jumps Coach at the University of Florida. Nic’s complete resume from his previous eight seasons of coaching includes a World Champion, five athletes who have made IAAF World Championships teams, two Olympians, a collegiate record holder, six athletes who have combined for 13 individual national titles, and two athletes who have combined for three gold medals at United States Track and Field Outdoor Championships. Petersen’s top pupil to date, Marquis Dendy, blossomed into one of the most prolific combination jumpers in NCAA history, becoming the only collegian to finish his career as 27-foot long jumper and 57-foot triple jumper both indoors and outdoors.

Jeremy Fischer: Jeremy Fischer is the Lead Coach and Director of the USATF residence program in Chula Vista. He is the lead instructor for USATF Coaching Education and runs coach’s education clinics all over the world. He also serves on staff for the Paralympics and was the coach for Rio 2016, and world championships in 2013 and 2015.

David Kerin: Dave Kerin currently serves on USATF’s High Performance Committee in the role of Men’s Development Chair and as Chair of Men’s & Women’s High Jump. He is perhaps best known for his paper, “What is the most direct means to achieve strength gains specific to the demands of jumping events?” The piece was the first to propose and defend the primacy of eccentric strength for the jumps. Although Dave is now retired from collegiate coaching, an athlete of his has held the NCAA Indoor & Outdoor Championships records in High Jump for the past 16 years. Dave continues to be a coaching education instructor and mentor to coaches across the U.S. and internationally.

Nick Newman: Nick Newman is currently the Horizontal/Vertical Jumps and Multis Coach at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of The Horizontal Jumps: Planning for Long Term Development (2012). His standout success to date was the development of Blessing Ufodiama to a mark of 14.06 meters and the Top 2 rank in the U.S. as a triple jumper in 2011. He graduated with a master’s degree in Human Performance and Sport Psychology from California State University Fullerton, and is a former collegiate and international long jumper for England. He is certified as a Strength and Conditioning Coach, and Technical Coach through the USTFCCCA.

Randy Huntington: Randy Huntington is one of the world’s foremost track and field coaches. During his 40-year career, Randy’s coaching and motivational skills have produced world-record breakers, Olympic medal winners, and champions in several countries. He is currently the Head Coach for Chinese Athletics, where his athletes are among the greatest track and field competitors from America, China, and South Korea. For instance, Soonok Jung broke South Korea’s longstanding long jump record and Tony Nai broke Taiwan’s long and triple jump records. At least one athlete that he’s coached has competed in every Summer Olympic Games since 1984.

A high point of Randy’s career came on August 30, 1991, in Tokyo. That night, his protégé, Mike Powell, jumped 29’ 4 ½” to break a 23-year record that was believed to be unbreakable. Another great moment occurred when Willie Banks became the first man to jump over 18 meters at the 1988 Olympic trials.

Brian Brillon: In his 16 years of experience, Coach Brian Brillon has coached at the high school, Division 3 NCAA, and Division 1 NCAA levels. Brian is most notably known for coaching Michael Hartfield at The Ohio State University. While there, Hartfield broke Jesse Owen’s legendary 77-year-old school record in the long jump and captured third place at the NCAA National Championships. Brian’s background in sports medicine and as a practicing massage therapist gives him a multidisciplinary approach to coaching.

Weight Training and Special Exercises

SimpliFaster: “Special exercises” are described as those that bridge the gap between traditional exercises and event-specific technical training. An example could be a single-leg hang power clean, which could be deemed a more-specific variation for single support disciplines such as the horizontal and vertical jumps. Can you describe your philosophy on weight training for jumpers, including exercise selection, specific protocols you find beneficial, and your view on “special exercises?”

Travis Geopfert: For years, I have personally been fond of the effectiveness of combination/contrast or potentiation training (whichever you want to call it). I personally believe that varying weights for varying reps, combined with a plyometric movement, is the best way to maximize power output. I first learned of this training philosophy in graduate school at Central Missouri State. I was a GA with Tucker Woolsey at CMSU and learned from him and one of his mentors, Brad Mears (a former thrower and professor at CMSU), the importance of this training principle.

Over the years, our lifting programs have evolved and I believe we are now the most effective we’ve ever been, thanks to our current strength coach, Mat Clark. I am privileged to have coached Mat at the University of Northern Iowa and now work with him as a peer. He has taken our belief in this combination lifting to another level and he does a fantastic job of finding individual event-specific ways to maximize the power output of all our athletes. Here is a direct quote that Mat wrote to me in an email last year, which I think does a good job of explaining our thought process with this type of lifting:

“Here’s the percentage template for the next cycle. The main changes are that each main strength movement is in combination with a maximum power and speed movement, so most exercises are groupings of three related movements that are heavy and fast. The goal is to train maximal rate of force development and the stretch reflex together. Percentages for the main strength movements are similar to the last cycle, but are used as an RPE (rate of perceived exertion) scale, meaning that the focus will be on moving fast and efficiently, so the exact numbers assigned will vary according to how they feel that day. The ‘No-Set’ addition to the hang pull + hang clean combo and hang clean + split jerk combo means that they will move fluidly from one to the other without the chance to reset. This means that [they] have to be able to consistently exert maximum force from an incredibly stable catching position.” ~ Mat Clark, University of Arkansas Track and Field Strength Coach

Dan Pfaff: I think the use of weight training in jumping events should be based on KPI factors for that athlete, time of year, stage of development, injury history, and load effect on compatible/complementary factors in the main programming. It should be an adjunct in most cases, not a driver per se. We safeguard sprinting and jump-specific work all year long. I believe in using lifts that utilize a series of joint actions and deeply involve synchronization, rate coding, frequency of firing factors, magnitude of firing indices, motor unit numbers, etc.

I guard athlete energy and time ergonomics closely, so we do a smaller number of exercises but strive for KPI themes with each one. Absolute strength, power output, contextual foundations, and injury prevention are some of the main influences on exercise selection. We try to stay with ideas and concepts that have produced positive trends within our group for years or for that athlete in previous seasons, if possible.

We do experiment with ideas and concepts, but only after deep collaboration and discussion, and then only at specific times of the year—still safeguarding the generational design of the daily program. I struggle with the specificity of movement concepts at times as I feel like the purpose of the exercise may not lend itself to movement specificity. If motor unit number is a factor then, in my experience, specificity decreases in importance.

Nic Petersen: Our Strength and Conditioning Coach, Matt Delancey, answered this question. He works with all our jumpers and does an incredible job.

Squat/overhead squat assessment to find major dysfunction

Address dysfunction – Do this prior to training so the athlete can train with better alignment. This also creates a situation where the athlete recovers faster from training because of less tissue damage associated with better alignment.
Key general strength/power exercises for jumpers:

• Snatch
• Clean
• Squat
• Vertical hamstring

Use variations of these exercises throughout the training year to prevent plateaus.

Jumps Specific Strength Exercises (JSSE)

• Step-up variation progressions – Higher boxes to lower boxes. Moving heavy weight fast on all heights. Stay tall through the hips and keep the core locked in.
• Eccentric work is a JSSE in my thought process. Proper posture and alignment is essential. Start from a :03/:03:01 tempo to a :05/:05/:01 tempo with body weight then back to the :03/:03/:01 with weight once they’ve mastered the BW, then progress the time with weight.

Weight room plyos are debatable for me:

• Flying step-ups
• Cyclic turnover drill with back foot on box

The most important aspect is what we briefly discussed earlier: Simple Stuff Done Savagely Well!!!

Jeremy Fischer: My philosophy is that weight training varies from athlete to athlete and depends on gender, anthropometric measurements, and training age, as well as general age. I also analyze the athlete’s history of training and how long they have been training with me. I believe that, as with any formation of a training design you do with athletes, you need to have a baseline assessment of the athlete: their strengths, weaknesses, perceived knowledge, technical acquisition, and background. I’d like to say I have a general system, but I don’t. I do follow guidelines for using a sound and proper technique, going through the progression of the lift, and going from general to more specific or “special” exercises as the season progresses.

I implement “special exercises” or strength-specific exercises and believe in their value. I think the timing of implementation becomes one of the more important factors in including these exercises, and analyzing movement and speed of movement in determining their correlation to the specific movement they are trying to complement.

The timing for ‘special exercises’ implementation is a very important factor in their inclusion. Share on X

David Kerin: I am under the assumption that we are talking about higher-level athletes as opposed to beginners. Accepting that, much of what is prescribed for such individuals can be translated for appropriate use with developmental athletes.

A pivotal concept needs to be explained and is more important than anything else that follows here. A jump executed off a prior approach run is not best viewed as a jump. Jumping events are more correctly described as deflections off the ground; this being a more user-friendly concept than getting into force vectors.

In the U.S., we continually raise generations of “pushers.” Athletes grow to misunderstand the mission as being one of pushing off the ground. Cartoons, sitcoms, the movie industry, school PE classes, well-intended but under-educated coaches, parents, and society in general all serve to misinform athletes about the mission. A standing jump hasn’t appeared on the Olympic schedule in 100 years. The reality is that a running jump results from a collision with the ground, and the nature of the collision dictates the result. So, seek out “special exercises” initially to ameliorate this flawed understanding and its faulty motor programs.

“Special exercises” to me mean both non-traditional and event-specific. There are “special exercises” to detrain “jumping” in favor of pre-recruitment and stiffness at desired joint angles, and “special exercises” to detrain inhibitory factors that are psychological and sensory-organelle based. For example: landings as compared to rebound jumps; isometrics as opposed to more traditional weight room work; max/near max strength work as viewed against lower load and power work.

Isometric work, along with tendon training and health, are current interests. They are natural progressions from previous research establishing the primacy of eccentric strength to a jump. If you think about the ROM of a half to full squat versus the ROM at the knee during run-up and at plant/takeoff, you may see what I am getting at. I am not saying to throw out traditional lifts or stretch reflex/plyo work, etc., but consider their timing, dosage, and contribution to the mission, and then consider my description of “special exercise.”

My apologies for not throwing in some uniquely titled, proprietary sounding, special sauce exercises here. There is no magic bullet to my view. Rather, I encourage the reader to look at the bigger picture, starting with the demands of the event and where the athlete falls short, and then prescribe from there.

Nick Newman: My weight room philosophy blends the use of traditional, non-traditional, simple, complex, obvious, and not-so-obvious methods. Although programming is predominantly based around event-specific requirements, individual needs play a large role as well. Understanding where the athlete falls along the speed-strength or strength-speed continuum is critical for program design.

Program design relies strongly on knowing where the athlete falls on the speed-strength continuum. Share on X

For me, field tests play a crucial role. For example, bounding tests, short approach jump distances, and specific sprinting tests will determine where the weight room emphasis should fall. The ability to squat the house but achieve mediocre bounding, or jump short approach distances will serve little purpose for the end goal. We must learn what weight room markers relate to the event-specific performance for each individual.

This leans more toward strength protocol than exercise choice. For me, important exercises are the power clean, clean pull, deep/parallel/quarter squat, and step up. I am quite basic here because I feel it is important that technique not be limiting during maximum strength or power development. Simple and direct exercises serve the best purpose. Athletes who perform these exercises well (whether it be with high resistance or light/moderate resistance) tend to have the best event-specific performances.

My programming is progressive in design. I know where I want my athlete at competition time, but all paths to that goal are not always the same. Generally speaking, the ratio of work shifts from general strength/technique to maximum strength to RFD and speed/strength to reactive strength over the course of the preparation period. However, as previously discussed, the length of time spent focusing on a particular quality differs for different athletes.

Regardless of an athlete’s dominant quality, power development is always a priority, specifically the speed, effort, and efficiency of movement. I am lucky now to have regular access to the Keiser squat. This enables us to determine the optimal resistance for peak power output for each athlete on a daily basis. We can determine where on the power curve we want to focus. This is a superb tool and we use it multiple times per week.

I include transference/“special exercise” selection all year in progressive ratios. For this, I use a host of simple and complex unilateral exercises. These provide excellent variations in stimulus for developing specific neural adaptation related to the takeoff mechanism. I also find that these are excellent psychological tools for jumpers.

I am also in strong favor of complex training and will use it with most, but not all, athletes. I have specific progressions for complex training that I like to use. For example, during early preparation I like a deep squat coupled with a deep-seated box jump. Complexes progress from simple to complex and increase in movement specificity toward competition.

In a nutshell, my strength-training program is balanced; stresses variety, quality, and intensity; and emphasizes the athlete’s strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. I want my athletes to have high levels of general strength, as well as the highest relative power levels possible.

Randy Huntington: I would say, after years of doing this, that I believe the weight room has no “special exercises” that directly influence performance. Having said that, I still use some exercises that, at the very least, strengthen those movements necessary for setting up better sprinting and jumping. Most of my weight training consists of what today is labelled “triads”: high force/low velocity with power coming from the force component, followed by high velocity/med power with power coming from the velocity side of equation, and then finishing with high force/high velocity where I blend the power between force and velocity.

Here is a partial list:

• Sanyevs
• 90-degree step-ups
• Skipping with barbell
• Single leg 20cm step-ups
• Keiser squat
• Keiser rack 10 second double leg hop
• Push jerk into step up
• 20-40cm box down ups w/barbell
• Keiser single leg press
• Shuttle MVP
• Keiser FT and a host of single response hurdle takeoffs into pit, etc.

Brian Brillon: I feel that weight training, by implementing schemes of strength and power, are important in the training component of jumping. Gains in the weight room can have some positive effects on the performance of the athlete. Olympic lifts and their variations are important for the expression of power and strength that the athletes must possess to sprint and jump. I believe that static lifts not only increase the strength of the muscle, but also provide the joints of the kinetic chain with the stability that is needed while sprinting and jumping.

My philosophy is that the weight room aids in the construction of a better engine for the athlete. Having said that, the weight room must be the slave and not the master in the training of the jumps. An increase in the numbers in lifting must be transferable to the gains that must occur on the track. This is not to take away from what happens in the weight room, but I see some athletes who think that, if they only lift more, things will be dramatically different on the track.

I believe the magic in the weight room is a by-product of a well-designed methodical periodization plan. Commonalities between desired accomplishments on the track and lifting should be considered. For instance, if it is a max velocity day on the track, I would prescribe Olympic lifts that would incorporate shorter movements to give a clear signal to the nervous system as to what we are trying to accomplish. These lifts would be above the floor and either below or above the knee. A training week would typically have two or three high neuro days, with Olympic and static lifts prescribed on these days.

Every coach has some “special exercise” that is beneficial to their athlete to help find the missing pieces to the puzzle. I tend to think more as a generalist: I believe in the solid principles of a sound concept of cause and effect in track. It will only lead to frustration if you just look at the moment of error without taking into consideration the concept that preceded it and then try to plug in a “special exercise” to fix it.

Tomorrow we’ll feature the next installment of this Jumps Roundtable series: “Technical Training for Jumpers.”

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

 

There’s currently a lot of talk about waving loads to advance adaptations and to increase muscle capacity without overtraining.

Progressive overload does work. But if we continually increase the load without undulation, an athlete will quickly overtrain because energy is not restored. Nor is there sufficient time for adaptation to take place before the next overload.

We know that adaptation requires change and stabilization is necessary before additional loading. An excellent way to make this happen is to undulate the loads in a wave (or block). Some common variations of this are found in Kraemer’s Flexible Nonlinear periodization,⁴ Simmons 3-week waves,⁷ and Rhea’s Undulating periodization.⁶

We can use velocity to dictate loads within a wave and to foster an athlete’s self-competition. Velocity offers precision loading and greater increases in performance when the athlete uses the feedback from their training.

Definitions

In this article, I refer to ascending and descending waves. An ascending wave increases velocity over the course of the wave (and load may decrease), and a descending wave decreases velocity over the course of the wave (and load may increase).

By increasing velocity, we emphasize the movement’s increasing rate of force development. By decreasing the velocity, we emphasize increasing the strength of the movement.

Most commonly, velocity-based training (VBT) is used to increase the rate of force development for team sport athletes. The two traits most commonly developed are strength-speed and speed-strength. Strength-speed is developed for the majority of the traditional movements between.75 and 1.0m/s. Speed-strength is developed between 1.0 and 1.3m/s.

Typically waves are done with smaller intensity jumps, so most of my examples wave within their own trait. It is possible, however, to wave between traits.

Strength-Speed: Improving Power

Let’s say we have an in-season model of an offensive tackle in American football trying to improve strength-speed for greater improvements on the field. The athlete is a little bit slow and less explosive; two things we want to improve.

An advantage to changing the velocity is that it psychologically allows the athlete to overreach a little. That is, when the athlete knows what load they hit last week, they will naturally strive to use the same load or more.

This allows for a greater acceleration phase of the movement and greater transfer to the sporting movement.

Athletes are pre-programmed to move up in weight each week, rather than down in weight and up in velocity. Accordingly, athletes often try to move even faster because they expect to be stronger than they were the previous week.

This is a Jedi mind trick that sometimes motivates an athlete to make sure they’re putting full effort into each repetition. Once the athlete understands how to do this, they’ll see better gains overall.

This phenomenon allows the practitioner to get an extra bit of overshoot from the athlete who may alter their force-velocity curve up and to the left. It definitely can’t hurt.

As we already know, progressive overload is required to cause adaptation. This is a nice scheme to increase overload to influence power.

Strength-Speed: Improving Strength

Now let’s say we have an in-season model of a defensive tackle in American football who is trying to improve the strength side of the strength-speed curve. The athlete is already explosive, and we’re trying to increase his absolute strength in-season.

According to some experts, increases in absolute strength using heavy resistance training are not possible, but increases in strength from submaximal loads and volumes may occur with less, or no, detrimental impact on the field.

The descending velocity actually is an increase in load. This may allow athletes to feel more confident as they progress in loads each week because they appear to be “much stronger” than they were the previous week.

When athletes feel more confident, their results will improve. Share on X

The greatest transferable trait from the weight room to the playing field is confidence,3 said Joe Kenn, Carolina Panthers head strength coach and author of the Strength Coaches Playbook. If we can help athletes feel more confident, we will have a better result.

Waving Between Traits

Some people may like to wave between traits to maintain both strength and speed during the block. This follows the same premise, but we have to know the goal of the training cycle to decide where to spend most of the training time.

Full disclosure, I have not intermixed speed-strength and strength-speed. I know some people who have, and this is how they’ve done it.

For me, this is purely theoretical. I’m not a fan because I’ve found that, to achieve speed-strength on exercises like squats and deadlifts, I have to use accommodating resistance such as chains and bands. When I use these, I don’t like to switch back and forth between the accommodating resistance and straight weight.

To do so is fine. I always like to err on the side of caution and have never tried it. I prefer to try and keep the movement the same throughout the wave.

Wave Time Periods

In-seasons and off-seasons are usually much longer than three weeks, so what can be done for this? We could repeat the wave time and time again.

We could stay with the same velocities and change up the movement. With squats, this could mean simply changing up the width of the stance, changing the bars, adding or changing accommodating resistance, or a combination of all of these.

We can also vary the velocities.

We could repeat or change it up from there. If we want a longer wave, we could simply make smaller jumps from week to week, like a .05m/s jump instead of a .1m/s jump.

Using Velocity to Dictate Loads

Another advantage to dictating loads by velocity, especially in-season, is the relationship between 1RM and velocity.

As Jidovtseff2 and Gonzalez-Badillo1 found independently, there is a near perfect relationship between velocity and percentage of 1RM. Gonzalez-Badillo found that between testing periods, there was no greater change in the relationship than .01m/s.

Since in-season sport specific loads are very high, it’s quite possible an athlete will be at a reduced capacity in the weight room. By using velocity to dictate loads instead of a percentage of 1RM, we ensure the athlete works at an appropriate load and progresses through loads properly. This is better than using a previously tested number which may or may not be relevant for the athlete on any given day.

Using velocity to dictate loads ensures athletes work at appropriate loads and progress properly. Share on X

Also, using feedback from velocity waves leads to a greater transfer of training, as shown by Randell.⁵

In Randell’s recent study, two groups did the same workout with the same reps, sets, load, and rest periods. The only difference was that one group received velocity feedback on their squat jumps and the other did not.

The group using the feedback saw much greater improvements in vertical jump height, sprinting times, and ability to change direction.

Simply providing the athlete with feedback about how they did on every repetition increased the quality of every repetition and each subsequent repetition. And this led to a greater transfer to training.

Three-Week Wave for College and Professional Athletes

Regarding college and professional athletes, if they use the same load and type of barbell for three weeks, watch what happens to the velocity. Referring to the Randell study, which focused on professional rugby players, using feedback has a large impact on speed and strength improvements.

By using the same load each week, an athlete has a chance to use feedback more effectively. Changing the load each week may make more sense from a classical periodization model. But it may take away from the athlete’s effort.

If the athlete knows about their fastest reps the previous week, they can take this information to increase their effort, speed, and possibly adaptation.

Giving feedback to athletes generates speed and strength improvements. Share on X

If velocity increases each week, we can tell the athlete is getting stronger. A very plastic relationship exists between load and velocity. If the velocity of the load increases, this indicates a lower percentage of 1RM for that day.¹

Velocity training requires more time on the floor and more effort to coach athletes how to use it. It also leads to greater performance.

Additional Wave Cycles

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. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J., and L. Sanchez-Medina. “Movement Velocity as a Measure of Loading Intensity in Resistance Training.” International Journal of Sports Medicine 31(5): 347-352, 2010. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1248333.
2. Jidovtseff B., J. Quièvre, C. Hanon, and J.M. Crielaard. “Inertial muscular profiles allow a more accurate training loads definition. (Les profils musculaires inertiels permettent une définition plus précise des charges d’entraînement).” Science & Sport 24(2): 91-96, 2009. doi:10.1016/j.scispo.2008.09.002.
3. Kenn, J. The Coach’s Strength Training Playbook. (Monterey, CA: Coaches Choice) 2003.
4. Kraemer, W.J., and S. Fleck. Optimizing Strength Training: Designing Nonlinear Periodization Workouts. (Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics) 2008.
5. Randell, A.D., J.B. Cronin, J.W. Keogh, N.D. Gill, and M.C. Pedersen. “Effect of Instantaneous Performance Feedback During 6 Weeks of Velocity-Based Resistance Training on Sport-Specific Performance Tests.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 25(1): 87-93, 2011. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181fee634.
6. Rhea M.R., S.D. Ball, W.T. Phillips, and L.N. Burkett. “A Comparison of Linear and Daily Undulating Periodized Programs with Equated Volume and Intensity for Strength.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 16(2): 250-255, 2002.
7. Simmons L. Westside Barbell Book of Methods. (Grove City, OH: Action Printing) 2007.

 

When discussing hamstring injuries, attention is often focused on the management and rehabilitation of acute injuries such as grade one biceps femoris tear. However, many times hamstring soreness and poor sprint performance resulting from hamstring problems can persist long after an initial acute injury or multiple acute tears. In some cases, soreness develops even without an initial tear taking place. Most coaches and athletes are aware that the hamstrings are under tremendous forces during sprinting.

The forces appear highest during the terminal recovery phase of the foot just prior to ground contact, as well as during the support phase working to create stiffness in conjunction with the quadriceps and gluteal muscles. This occurs in around 0.03 seconds in elite sprinters, meaning the rate of forces is tremendous. The literature would suggest that overly ambitious and unmanaged training and competition volumes are the major culprits for the development of hamstring injuries. Chronic pain is handled extremely badly with athletes, often because the wrong things are blamed for the problem, and the wrong recommendations are perpetuated because coaches and athletes think they can fix the problem the same way you manage an acute injury. As we will see this is not the case.

With chronic hamstring soreness, athletes tend to complain more of stiffness and soreness that persists long after exercise and is especially prevalent when warming up. They note that the pain often goes away after warming up and can often compete or train well, but the soreness gets worse the following few days. This process continues for a while until it suddenly seems to get worse and more persistent. This also tends to lead them towards more massage therapy and more stretching. Unfortunately, if these measures are aimed at the wrong things, such as attempts to break up scar tissue, adhesions, or trigger points they may perpetuate the issue, increasing anxiety and frustration.

This article will discuss the causes and implications of chronic hamstring soreness and dysfunction and what the best management approach would be.

What Causes Chronic Hamstring Soreness and Weakness?

It seems that following a hamstring injury, the nervous system sets in place inhibitory mechanisms to avoid injury again, literally turning the contractile power down. This neural inhibition can often persist long after the structural integrity has returned. The brain is likely not to allow all the powerful, fast-twitch motor units to fire when the same discipline that caused the injury is implemented again. Unfortunately, due to the rate that high muscle forces occur at during fast running, the nervous system’s protective role can remain persistent for some time specifically in relation to that activity. If fast running is forced during this period, the forces experienced are likely to be absorbed less by the contractile muscular structures and more from the passive connective tissues in the muscle and tendon. Commonly, this leads to chronic tendon soreness, further inhibition and lack of speed that can occur long after a muscular injury. Athletes and coaches underestimate how long this process may persist for, and commonly with complete rest the problem resurfaces quickly because of general relative deconditioning.

The brain responds to unmanaged or unrelenting tissue stress in an interesting way. The central nervous system and brain receive information back from the tissues via receptors that travel up through tracts in the spinal cord. The brain takes this information and together with previous experience as well as the athlete’s beliefs about the meaning of them, determines the significance of that information. Brain outputs such as pain and excessive muscle tightness are determined by how the brain responds in light of this information. However, in the case where pain and connective tissue strain has been exacerbated for some time, the brain begins to output pain messages much more readily. This is known as central sensitization that, in essence, is a lowering of the threshold to which a stimulus in the tissue receptors triggers a pain response. This is a very important point. Pain is not experienced in the tissues; it is experienced in the brain over the area that maps that region of the body (it’s much more complex than that but for the purpose of this article it will do).

Interestingly, the experience of tightness and stiffness can also be considered expressions of the brain. My experience working closely with patients in a clinical setting has made clear over time that a person’s complaint of stiffness and tightness has little to do with the actual flexibility that they possess. I was shocked when examining a top soccer player from Nigeria once when looking at his limited hamstring flexibility. When I asked him “does that feel stiff or tight?” he experienced no stiffness or tightness at all which made me question the assumption of tightness and flexibility, and what is considered normal. I concluded that his degree of flexibility was normal for him, and importantly his brain also told him that it was normal. Indeed, he did not have a hamstring problem, and he was very fast. On the other end of the spectrum, I have had examined experienced yoga attendees who complain of tightness in a hamstring with 120 degrees of range. Tightness is a perception brought on by particular sensations towards a muscles end range.

Chronic hamstring problems can build slowly over the length of a competitive season; however, very often in the initial stages they do not cause a significant decrease in performance. Commonly, a young athlete will have a breakthrough year and compete week in week out from indoor to outdoor ignoring the increasing hamstring soreness because they are still improving. They figure that with a few weeks of rest at the end of the season it should go away, only to find that when they return to training it is worse than when the season finished. Why would this be so? It seems likely that following a period of rest the general strength of the muscles may be reduced, the muscles feel well rested and relaxed but the brain has become more vigilant and remembers the stress it experienced. The brain also senses that things, in general, are a bit weaker in combination and with a state of low training arousal the brain will take precedence over the need to avoid the activity you are forcing it to do in favour of more recovery. However, it is likely that the tissue injury has healed well.

The Frustration Begins

Commonly, the athlete will seek out an answer for the soreness and see a sports professional. Often, MRI or ultrasound examination will show no abnormalities such as inflammation or distinct tears; however, it can be important to rule out. Clinical examination will demonstrate normal flexibility, strength testing in a clinical setting will appear normal, and the muscle feels no different to palpation in comparison to the other opposite muscle. At this point, many therapists will attempt to give the athlete a structural reason to rationalize some therapy. These may or may not be relevant, but, unfortunately, the relevance can be overstated, and a lot of false positives can be blamed which can build on the athlete’s anxieties if not put into perspective. Common diagnoses for chronic hamstring soreness includes tendinitis/tendinopathy, grade one tear, sciatica, and piriformis syndrome. With common treatment aimed at soft tissue joint manipulation, stretching and strengthening which if not utilized appropriately can perpetuate the belief that a structural problem is predominant and ignore a higher brain involvement.

Management

To overcome chronic soreness in hamstring muscles, the athlete needs reassurance that there is not a structural tissue problem, or it is at least minimal. If this is not managed well, this can lead to disability reinforcement. If the athlete can understand early on that their brain might be playing a role in their sensations, it can give them a sense of power over it. This is vital, it tells them there is a problem, and it is real, but it is not because they have a structural muscle problem. I often tell patients that your brain will do what it wants to do, but your thoughts and perceptions about the sensations can either make it better quicker or make it worse. Encouraging positive reinforcement, building confidence, and time are important factors that will help remarkably. This may require more time with the athlete talking about their feelings, taking every opportunity to reassure. Secondly it may require a break from normal training on track and avoiding speed endurance work for a focus on slower resistance training.

Mistakes in the management of chronic pain can be summed up in one sentence; excessive treatment and attention to the problem area without enough consideration of an overall approach can lead to disability reinforcement. I suggest that in most cases taking a more general or global approach to chronic injury management and therapy, as well as appropriate counselling that includes reassurance to rebuild confidence will be more effective.

I will outline what I think can perpetuate the problem with different treatment modalities, as well as rehabilitation attempts and suggest a better overall management approach.

Joint and Muscle Therapy

Manipulation of the soft tissues and articular structures can play a role in hamstring injury management. Unfortunately, this can be overdone and can lead to disability reinforcement often through confirmation bias. For example, athletes and coaches will seek out therapy and certain therapists with the impression that they need excessive treatment for muscular adhesions, scar tissue, poor flexibility, joint misalignment, poor core strength and a huge array of other things that may only be a fraction of the problem. Low down on the list is how the brain might be affecting the dysfunction and that their thoughts and beliefs may be reinforcing the problem. Many therapists do their job well by fixing these subtle problems; however, they fail to counsel the athlete well enough by placing these problems into perspective.

As a Chiropractor, I often consult athletes with chronic hamstring injuries/pain, and they come on the referral of their coach who tells them maybe you should go to the Chiropractor because I think your back is causing the problem. When I examine them, they often are suffering from some lower back/pelvic strain/dysfunction. However, it is often clear that these issues are likely another product of an excessive volume of training/competition and protective brain output. In essence, they often accompany a hamstring strain rather than directly cause it. Asymmetry of mobility in the sacroiliac joints has been associated with acute and chronic hamstring strains and a look at the training regime highlights two things when we find this pattern. The proportion of block starts and high-intensity bend running is too high, so I would advise that these two factors be limited in volume, especially early in the season. However, before considering joint and muscle therapy, I make sure the athlete and coach understand that this may only be a very small part of the problem and that it is likely an associated factor that is being caused by protective brain output, and not the entire cause of the hamstring injury.

Manual therapies can a have a great effect on chronic pain when the athlete is treated in a more general way. Massage and joint manipulation can stimulate pressure and movement receptors which can have the effect of altering pain processing in the brain over time. If, however, treatment is directed too much at the region of the injury, eventually we may begin to add to the sensitization. People are often confused as to why I would treat the upper back, neck or ankle with a hamstring problem; the goal is the effect on the brain and spinal cords pain processing pathways via leveraged movement stimuli. We are trying to alter wiring through very novel stimulus. I believe massage can work in a similar way as long as attention is not excessively given to a problem area and I would limit attempts to repeatedly “break up scar tissue in the muscle”. Stretching the hamstring statically or dynamically is also unlikely to have any beneficial effect on an athlete’s chronic hamstring soreness and may even perpetuate the problem as end-range stimulus is often associated with a reciprocal protective response. The muscle feels looser for about 10 minutes but subsequently it tightens up again. In addition, stretching can then become an obsessive habitual desire and continues a low-grade stimulus that triggers the brain’s protective reflexes.

Workouts to Enhance Recovery

Performing low-intensity workouts between high-intensity speed training or competition such as tempo may seem like a good idea on the surface. However, I would question the rationale behind this approach, especially with an athlete suffering chronic pain. Firstly, the intensity is relative to the degree of effort, so a workout of 10 x 100m at 75% of top speed may feel like a low-intensity session one week, but performed following a high-intensity session can become moderate to high intensity regarding effort that is the real measure of intensity. For an athlete with chronic pain, rather than providing recovery these sessions gradually create more irritation as well as slowing the rate of neuromuscular output. I would recommend that for an athlete with chronic soreness, that more days of complete rest be implemented and resist the temptation for too much active recovery. The risk of too much low intensity is that the overall ability to produce high intensity may become reduced. The rationale behind recovery sessions and tempo are that it will increase blood flow to the area and provide a gentle stimulus to the muscles to stimulate recovery and beneficial cardiovascular changes to provide better recovery systems over time, more so than high-intensity sprint training and competition can. However, there is no strong evidence that recovery can be improved this way (other than restricting intensity) or that long term adaptations will occur to enhance recovery systems. I would suggest that the main effect on some athletes may be psychological.

Strength Protocols That Excessively Focus on Strengthening the Problem Area but Fail to Create General High-intensity Muscle Effort

The longer that an athlete has suffered chronic hamstring pain and stiffness the more likely they have lost the ability to absorb load through the muscle, and they tend to remain in a shortened position to protect them. The research literature regarding hamstring injuries often focuses on which exercises activate the hamstrings the most. The argument being that high EMG activity must mean that it is a better choice to strengthen the muscle, and this will rebuild structural integrity as well as high neuromuscular output. Coaches and athletes, however, must be careful how quickly and how much volume of direct and isolated hamstring training they implement, as this plus track work may serve to overload the hamstring (and the brains response) even more. The idea of the “weak link” is an attractive one, and this type of thinking often leads to excessively working the area rather than giving it a rest and considering an overall strength approach. Indeed, the injured muscle may be a compensation for weakness in other areas, and there is a tendency over time for the athlete to develop overall lower body weakness if attention is focused on only isolated areas rather than the whole muscular chain. Certainly the hamstring to quadriceps strength ratio may be less important than once thought. Instead, one should consider strength in all muscles. Exercises that are often prescribed by health professionals tend to be generic low-intensity movements that aim to work the hamstrings in multiple ranges. The frequency of recommendation is also often far too high for daily exercise programs common that may reinforce a disability complex and simply overwork the muscle in a less than biomechanically sound fashion.

Hence with chronic hamstring injury I would suggest compound exercises can be a better initial option that involves the hamstrings as part of a team rather than in isolation. High neuromuscular output and recruitment of fast twitch motor units is accomplished well through key compound exercises such as the squat and deadlift. These exercises work the muscles and the hamstrings in their strong ranges and avoid forced or vulnerable end-range movements and forced positions in active or passive insufficiency. A lying leg curl, for instance, often places the biceps femoris in a position of active insufficiency and then it gets forced further into active insufficiency and tends to overwork the medial hamstrings, as a result, which potentiates a groin strain. The Glute-ham raise and Nordic hamstring exercise may also be limited in these regards, and I would suggest that the best and healthiest hamstring exercises produce high tension when the hip is not maintained in an extended position. Better options to isolate the hamstrings would be the Romanian or stiff leg deadlift, with both double or single leg, glute ham raise or even a seated leg curl.

Eccentric exercises have been suggested as a good means of chronic muscular and tendon pain management and have demonstrated good results in subjective pain improvements, objective intramuscular and tendon changes as well as greater strength output. However, it is not clear that omitting the concentric portion of the exercises is necessary for optimal results. I would suggest that with some exercises, avoiding forced contractions in a shortened muscle position may be the added benefit of eccentric only protocols. There is also suggestion that long-term exposure to eccentric exercise will increase fascicle length and possibly provide an advantages length-tension relationship for greater power generation in sports. This is interesting and needs more research to examine whether this can be transferred over to sporting disciplines or it is a temporary and exercise specific change.

What is clear, however, is that higher motor unit recruitment is beneficial in most cases of rehabilitation. And when it comes to sprinting, the central nervous system will only ALLOW fast sprinting to occur if it has confidence that the muscular tensile capability is very high. It would make sense that developing maximum strength capacity would be very beneficial in the whole system. The squat and deadlift, while being valuable overall leg strength developers, can also build athlete confidence as well as alter the focus away from an injury that may be valuable in the athlete that has chronic soreness. The rate of muscle tension is a lot slower than that of sprinting, so it is likely not to irritate the muscle and tendons as much. It is important, however, that the goal doesn’t become to see how much the athlete can lift, and they will need to be reduced or eliminated before speed work and competition, as a chronic hamstring problem will be much more susceptible when being forced to perform vastly different disciplines. Importantly the squat or deadlift should be taken to the point of momentary muscle failure (as long as the technique is sound) once per week to ensure fast twitch muscle fibre involvement. Staying away from running may allow the nervous system to re-learn what the muscles are capable of and change the wiring.

Hence, for an athlete coming back from a chronic hamstring problem, I would recommend a break from all running and prior to the start of competition for a 6 to 8 week period of strength training, two to three days per week, alternating between low bar squats to parallel and the conventional deadlift setting the bar down between reps. This will build general core and lower body strength output and should over some weeks let some chronic hamstring pain and stiffness reduce. After about four weeks, they should be able to challenge the hamstrings more directly by loading with the semi-stiff leg deadlift in either double leg with a wider stance that tends to target the medial hamstrings more, or in a single leg stance that appears to target the biceps femoris to a greater extent. However, I would still be mindful of the frequency of these exercises as well as the loads used. Indeed, it may be better to use them as a good gauge of strength rather than a regular exercise. The Nordic hamstring exercise may also be a good gauge of progress. Importantly are the principles of progressive overload and recovery, if the athlete can see they are getting stronger in a few key exercises confidence will soar. In cases of long-term chronic hamstring problems, the athlete may not be strong enough for the semi-stiff leg deadlift initially, and even very moderate weights can be quite aggravating and perpetuate the soreness if not careful, especially if the end-range position is not controlled well, and the passive structures of the tendon and muscle are loaded too rapidly. I would make sure that the athlete can do continuous tension normal style deadlifts (reps without putting the bar down in between) before attempting a stiff leg deadlift in the same fashion.

Speed work and Competition

It would be prudent for the athlete to build gradually up to speed work but being mindful not to make the error to push for endurance. Keeping volume relatively low with easy not forced repetitions of a distance that allows a comfortable rhythm, and encourages the athlete to ease into it. Staying away from the excitement of the track and finding a long straight and flat running strip of 200-400m would be ideal, always finishing on a faster run and avoiding the build up of fatigue. It is alluring to push into fatigue and think that the athlete will adapt, but the goal is not fitness but smooth, relaxed running that will allow a smooth transition back to top speed.

Once they are ready to get back on track and work on speed in spikes, it would be beneficial for the athlete to aim to stay fresh and maintain short high-intensity sessions, and being careful to avoid too much bend work, speed endurance and block work. Keeping the athlete’s top speed ability over a short range high will be somewhat protective over the injury. Leaving speed endurance efforts to competition would be a good strategy due to the high states of psychological arousal as it will stimulate high-quality movement, tune the nervous system and build confidence. However, they should avoid the desire to get in lots of speed work before or between competitions as they might find that they will break down fast. The athlete needs time at high intensity without exacerbation. This means high quality with long recoveries in between. If the athlete does not have access to high-quality competition a timing system such as Freelap is very valuable in keeping them from doing too much and working on mechanics at top speed, however, be mindful not to strain more and more for better times, especially no more than once per week.

Conclusion

Chronic hamstring soreness is common in sprinters and the approach to the injury must be different to that of acute tears. Their origins lie in prolonged high intensity over a period of time and are perpetuated by altered brain output. Many measures aimed at the injury often continue to aggravate the injury and over time this becomes manifested as reduced neuromuscular output. The athlete’s coaches and therapists have a crucial role in counselling the athlete in the complexity of these problems and a collaborative approach with communication can be essential. While passive manual therapy can be useful, the keys to rehab training are building strength capacity in the entire muscular system and a gradual, graded return to fast running. With the correct approach outlined in this article, over time these chronic problems will disappear; with the wrong approach promising careers can be finished.

Reference

“A Comparison of muscular activation during the back squat and deadlift to the counter movement jump,” David Robbins CSCS, NASM-CPT, Sacred Heart University.

“Developments in the Use of the Hamstring/Quadriceps Ratio for the Assessment of Muscle Balance,” Rosalind Coombs, Gerard Garbutt, J Sports Sci Med. 2002 Sep; 1(3): 56–62.
Published online 2002 Sep 1.

“Electromyographic Activity of Lower Body Muscles during the Deadlift and Still-Legged Deadlift,” Ewertton Bezerra, Roberto Simão, Steven J Fleck, Gabriel Paz, Marianna Maia , Pablo B. Costa, Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 06/2013; 16(1097-9751):30-39.

“Hamstring muscle strain treated by mobilizing the sacroiliac joint,” Michael T Cibulka, S J Rose, A Delitto, David R Sinacore, Physical Therapy (Impact Factor: 2.53). 09/1986; 66(8):1220-3.

“Successful management of hamstring injuries in Australian Rules footballers: two case reports,” Wayne T Hoskins and Henry P Pollard, Chiropr Osteopat. 2005; 13: 4.

“The accuracy of MRI in predicting recovery and recurrence of acute grade one hamstring muscle strains within the same season in Australian Rules football players.” Gibbs NJ1, Cross TM, Cameron M, Houang MT., J Sci Med Sport. 2004 Jun;7(2):248-58.

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

 

The 110 high hurdles is unlike any other sprint in track and field. While running full speed, you must clear ten 42″ hurdles in stride while attempting to reach the finish line first. The event requires speed, technique, and most importantly, rhythm for success.

Over the past ten years, I’ve had the pleasure of working with some very good hurdle coaches and have done my best to pick their brains. In this article, I’ll share a few of the most important drills I’ve learned and explain how to implement them to achieve greater results.

In the 110 hurdles, the keys to success are to keep the hips high (closer to the height of the hurdle) and maintain a forward lean to ensure constant acceleration. Above all, you must run your fastest. Running fast should go without saying. But as you get caught up in the finer details of the event, you often find yourself running down the track thinking about what to do. This is a prime example of what not to do when the gun goes off. Thinking about, and working on, the technical aspects of the race is saved for practice. When it’s time to race, your intention must always be to run your fastest to cross the finish line.

Here are four drills that will help:

1. 1-step drill
2. Schery tops
3. Cycle ladder
4. Ladji drill

The 1-Step Drill

I learned about the 1-step drill in 2002 as a senior in high school while browsing AOL. I found many drills for improving technique and speed and, naturally, tried everything. I was lucky enough to have a coach that allowed me to experiment in practice, and this allowed me to find my own style and succeed to a greater degree than the average hurdler.

The 1-step drill is still my absolute favorite hurdle drill, and I believe it should be a part of every hurdler’s arsenal. The drill helps mimic the feeling of adrenaline when running full speed over the hurdles. This is very hard to replicate at sub-maximal speeds, but the 1-step drill does this very well in only 7-8 steps, the distance between the hurdles.

Some coaches believe this drill should not be performed because it doesn’t always follow proper mechanics or because it ingrains an improper cut step. In truth, as you begin to perform the drill better, it fixes all of these errors. At first, you’ll find it very mechanical and slow, but over time, you’ll develop a rhythm and establish the habit of reacting to the hurdles. This is exactly how to clear the hurdles at top speed.

To perform the drill, simply set up at least 3 hurdles anywhere from 6-10 feet apart and move through them in a 1-step fashion.

To truly master the drill, first focus on executing proper mechanics over the hurdles:

1. Lean forward
2. Dorsi flex
3. Drive the heel to the hip
4. Finish extension into the hurdle (through the takeoff leg)
5. Drive the leg straight down to the track (off the hurdle)

Video 1. Here is a full training session with cues for mastering the 1-step drill.

As an athlete, you eventually want to develop an instant “bounce” over all hurdles. You want to literally glue the heel, while dorsiflexed, to the hip and feel the hips directly on top of the hurdles. This will take many, many reps to master, but it creates the exact sensation that you want. After hundreds of reps, you should not feel the movements themselves. Instead, you’ll the feel of the hip directly on top of the hurdles and have a continuous movement through all hurdles, instantly.

Schery Tops

I call this drill Schery tops because I was introduced to it by former coach Alfredo Schery. Coach Schery was formerly with the Cuban national team and has worked with some of the best hurdlers in the world. The drill is very simple, but may be a little challenging to perform at first because of the timing. The concept is very simple: continue to move down the track in a straight leg fashion to instill the sensation of a proper cut step.

The cut step is the most important step for sprint hurdles as it directly influences the parabolic flight over the hurdle and determines the velocity at which you clear the hurdle.

The proper cut step is placed directly beneath the hips, with absolutely no drop in the hips, at takeoff. This is precisely what the Schery tops help you achieve.

Before attempting the Schery tops, you should be able to perform the straight leg drill.

Video 2. How to perform the Schery tops.

The key to this drill is to allow momentum to take you over the hurdles without extra effort on your part. It will feel awkward because the timing will be so fast and so smooth that the entire clearance of the hurdles will feel off. But if you want to take your hurdling to new levels, you have to forget the old (what you thought was right) and get comfortable with the new and its weird timing. It’s important not to push to clear the hurdles as many athletes attempt to do.

1. Keep the knees locked
2. Allow the arms to swing
3. Raise the heels straight up into the hips (with feet dorsiflexed)
4. Continue moving with the knees locked

Cycle Ladder

The cycle ladder is a variation of the cycle drill taught to me by my former coach Steve McGill, the best hurdles coach in the world. The cycle drill is designed to help teach the proper cycle over the hurdles and helps develop the habit of continuing to move the limbs throughout hurdle clearance.

The cycle ladder differs in that the hurdles are set at increasing distances to help develop the quick feet required between hurdles without taxing the nervous system too much. The setup also helps those who have trouble 3-stepping get used to taking off further and further away from the hurdle.

To perform the drill, set the hurdles at increasing distances of 2 feet per hurdle. The cycle ladder drill allows beginners to get comfortable with the 3-step rhythm while gradually building their confidence to accomplish this at the regular race distance.
I like to perform the drill with the hurdles spaced 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 feet apart. The feet have to move very quickly between the first 2 hurdles, and the objective is to keep moving just as quickly as the spacing increases and you move down the track.

Video 3. Demonstration of the cycle ladder drill.

When performing the drill, continue pumping the arms up and down and focus on bringing the feet up into the hips (dorsiflexed) and straight back down to the ground. Do not allow the lead leg to swing forward or the trail leg to swing wide. Keep everything tight and moving up and down.

Cues:

• In mid-flight, prepare to move the feet very quickly on the ground
• Stay forward, stay forward, stay forward
• The trail leg should feel like it lands directly beside the lead leg
• Keep the rhythm the same throughout the drill (take off from further in front of the hurdle)
• Don’t increase the stride length to cover the distance between hurdles.

Ladji Drill

I’ve only seen this drill performed by Ladji Doucoure of France and, since I don’t know the drill’s name, I named it after him. I began implementing the Ladji drill in my own training with much success.

I’ve seen three hurdlers race who raised my adrenaline because they moved so fast and so aggressively it seemed they could crash at any moment: Renaldo Nehemiah, Larry Wade (former coach of mine), and Ladji Doucoure. In my opinion, Doucoure had the fastest lead leg of any hurdler because there was absolutely no air time when he cleared the hurdles. Many hurdlers have “fast” lead legs, but Ladji was amazing to watch because he was also almost too fast. (Not even possible right?) He often crashed in big meets because the lead leg got so far ahead that the trail leg (hip clearance) had a hard time keeping up. But when he didn’t crash, he usually won.

To perform the drill, turn the hurdle upside down and stand with one foot on the hurdle rail and the other foot behind the crossbar for balance. Shift all your weight forward onto the lead leg and allow gravity to take control as the leg moves down. As gravity pulls the lead leg to the ground, quickly pull the trail leg up to avoid catching it on the crossbar. The drill is actually difficult to explain. Watch the 30-second video below to see how it’s performed.

Video 4. Demonstration of the Ladji drill.

I began performing this drill in my living room over small obstacles. Eventually I tried it during practice. You can perform it with the hurdle at varying heights, but for the best results, use a 42” hurdle height. This will allow you to more closely mimic the split (separation of the legs) in the race. Do not try to jump or clear the hurdle, simply hang your leg on the rail, shift your weight forward, and allow gravity to do the rest.

There are many great drills a 110 hurdler can perform, but these four will give you greater success and faster times. Be sure to follow my blog and newsletter for more at SprintHurdles and, as always, run fast and make them chase you.

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

Introduction

“In order to become a wrestler one should have the strength of a weight- lifter, the agility of an acrobat, the endurance of a runner and the tactical mind of a chess master.” — Alexandre Medved

Wrestling is a dynamic, high-intensity combative sport that requires complex skills and tactical excellence for success (Zi-Hong et al., 2013). To be successful on the world stage, wrestlers need very high levels of physical fitness. Wrestling demands all qualities of fitness: Maximal strength, aerobic endurance, anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity. To be effective, wrestling techniques must also be executed with high velocity (Zi- Hong, 2013). Enhancing the functional ability of each of these physiological qualities is the primary aim of the Wrestling S&C Coach.

Athletes who wrestle at an elite level (international caliber) are often required to perform strength, power, and endurance training concurrently with aims to achieve improvements in all performance measures. Concurrent training is defined in the literature as strength and endurance training in either immediate succession or with up to 24 hours of recovery separating the 2 exercise modalities (Reed at al, 2013). Much of the research indicates a possible attenuation of strength and power as a result of concurrent training while aerobic capacity and endurance performance appear to be minimally affected (O’Sullivan, 2013). Concurrent training also applies in the technical and tactical development of the wrestler. Often the rigorous demands of practice can create a high level of fatigue, which must be considered when we advise a training program.

Although concurrent training does allow for the training of multiple physical qualities, it does place great adaptive demands on the athlete. The acute responses and long-term adaptations of the Neuromuscular and Neuroendocrine systems seem to be the most relevant areas to investigate with this population. Many factors appear to determine the adaptive ability of elite wrestlers to concurrent training, including the athlete’s level of physical conditioning, overall life stressors, nutrition¹, overall training volume, and the training program design.

¹Psychological and nutritional aspects are beyond the scope of this article.

Gaining insight into the most optimal ways to minimize interference by understanding models of fatigue are the cornerstones of this article. Also, understanding and analyzing elite level wrestlers’ physiological data gives practitioners insight into the benchmarks their athletes must reach to perform at the highest level.

The objectives of this article are as follows:

1. To highlight the physiological profile of elite, word-class male and female wrestlers.
2. To review concurrent training literature and observe the adaptations that result from different methodology.
3. To offer some programming strategies to minimize the interference effect and optimize the adaptation process.
4. To provide some future study design directions for researchers in this area so that the training programs being evaluated are an accurate representation of elite freestyle wrestling performance.

The Sport of Wrestling

 
Wrestling can be traced back to ancient times. “During the Ancient Olympic Games, from 708 B.C., wrestling was the decisive discipline of the Pentathlon. In fact, it was the last discipline to be held – after the discus, the javelin, the long jump and the foot race – and it designated the winner of the Pentathlon, the only crowned athlete of the Games” (United World of Wrestling Website).

Freestyle wrestling first made its appearance in 1904. In Greco-Roman wrestling only upper body moves are allowed, whereas freestyle includes upper body and leg wrestling. Both styles are currently offered in the Olympic Games and other international competition (Horswill, 1992). In September 2001, the International Olympic Committee announced the inclusion of Women’s Freestyle wrestling at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens (Wrestling Canada website: Spectator Resources, 2016).

Wrestling can be categorized as an intermittent, combative sport that requires maximal strength and power demands of the entire body, with a high anaerobic energy metabolic demand (Passelerague & Lac, 2012). It is also a weight class sport. Competitors are matched against others of their own size. This reduces the exclusion of smaller athletes in sports where physical size gives a significant advantage.

Wrestling activity is extremely chaotic in nature, encompassing repeated explosive movements at a high intensity that alternates with submaximal work. Thus, the primary energy systems utilized are the anaerobic adenosine triphosphate-creatine phosphate (ATP-CP) and lactic acid systems, within the scope of the aerobic system. It has been demonstrated that there are no major physiological differences between wrestlers of both freestyle and Greco-Roman styles (Mirzaei, 2009).

In 1904, freestyle wrestling was first introduced during the St. Louis Games. At the Stockholm Olympic Games in 1912, freestyle wrestling was absent from the program, and ‘Icelandic wrestling’ was instead organized. Wrestling matches took place on three mats in the open air. They lasted one hour, but finalists wrestled without a time limit (United World Wrestling Website). Over the past century, the match structure of international Freestyle wrestling has taken on several forms evolving past a continuous 5-minute period in the late 1990’s to the current: Two, 3-minute periods with a 30-second rest between periods. A match may be won by “fall”, by technical superiority or by points (Wrestling Canada website: Spectator Resources, 2016). During tournaments, multiple matches per day may occur over the course of a few days. There are no rule differences for female competitors. There is no overtime period; a tie is broken by point classification in the second round.

The Physiology of a Match

National, international and Olympic wrestling events are formatted in such a way that athletes are required to compete in multiple matches over the course of hours or for a few consecutive days (Barbas et al., 2011). This scenario, coupled with a significant weight loss (>6% of total mass) may have implications for performance.

Barbas et al. examined the physiological responses of 12 elite male Greco-roman wrestlers during a one-day wrestling tournament (2011). In 2011, the rules were slightly different than they are now. There were 3 rounds, each 2 minutes in duration separated by 30 seconds rest, totaling a maximum of 6 minutes of work. Knowing this, the acute physiological responses may not be valid in today’s rule system. In Barbas’ study, they observed a mean heart rate response of 85% of maximum and a peak HR of 96-98% of maximum during a match. Blood lactate concentrations exceeded 17 mM, which was consistent with other research findings. According to Kraemer et al., lactate levels may be related to glycogen depletion due to athletes’ restricted food intake and insulin’s maintenance during a wrestling tournament (2001). Elite wrestlers typically compete in a chronically dehydrated state. Thus, it has been hypothesized their fluid regulatory systems have been reset to a new “normal” indicating a compensatory response (Kraemer et al. 2001). Kraemer et al. (2001) also reported that elite wrestlers, in this typical hyperosmotic state, are still capable of competing at an elite level demonstrating a significant resiliency suggesting an adaptation of the hypothalamic control of osmolality regulation.

In Barbas’ study, each simulated match went the full 6 minutes. The athletes completed a total of 5 matches separated by varying timelines. Blood work showed an increase in muscle damage markers during the course of the day/tournament, with the upper limbs being more affected (2011). The hormones cortisol, norepinephrine and epinephrine also increased after each match and testosterone levels declined, creating a pro-inflammatory environment (2011). Other findings included that most performance markers (VJ, HB, Bear Hug, HG) deteriorated (»13–16%) after the third match as compared with baseline. Vertical Jump performance was the only metric to restore back to baseline for the final match (*after 5 hours of rest) (Barbas, 2011).

The authors noted that a one-day wrestling tournament might decrease performance match after match (2011). Upper body strength and performance appeared more susceptible to decline during the course of a 1-day wrestling tournament than those of the lower-body musculature as previously shown by Kraemer et al. (2001). Interestingly, 5–6 h of recovery between matches 4 and 5 was inadequate to induce a perceptual recovery. Similar findings have also been reported during a two-day wrestling tournament (Kraemer et al. 2001).

The ability of wrestlers to fully recover before their next match during a tournament is vital for performance and beyond the scope of this article. However, it is important to understand the physiological responses of well-trained wrestlers when competing multiple times per day. It is also important to note that the practice of weight cutting within reason (5-6% total mass) does not appear to interfere with performance determinants as shown by Barbas’ works and Kraemer’s study on elite freestyle wrestlers (2001).

The Physiological Characteristics of Elite Senior Male and Female Freestyle Wrestlers

One of the challenges confronting coaches and sport scientists is to “understand the physical and physiological factors contributing to successful wrestling” (Mirzaei et al., 2009). The use of lab and field tests for the measurement of the current status of the wrestler can provide the sport scientist with valuable information relative to the wrestler’s current physiologic capability and can allow them to compare the athlete with reference values from comparable peer groups.

When reviewing the literature on physiological profiles one must consider the year(s) of publication. Since there have been numerous rule and thus ‘style’ changes over the past 40 years, some of the earlier data may not be as relevant in today’s version of freestyle wrestling. For example in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s Freestyle match duration changed from 9 minutes to 6 minutes. After 1988, Freestyle wrestling changed from 2, 3-minute periods with one minute rest to a continuous 5-minute period (Callan et al., 2000). Currently, the athletes compete for two, three-minute periods separated by 30 seconds rest. The knowledge acquired regarding the changes in match design is helpful in the bigger picture.

Understanding and capturing the evolution of physiological profiles of elite freestyle wrestlers is fundamental, providing normative data for strength and conditioning coaches and providing benchmarks for young, aspiring competitors. It has been demonstrated that physiological variables alone can account for “approximately 45% of the variance seen between successful and less successful Freestyle wrestling Olympic contenders” (Callan et al., 2000).

Body Composition

Wrestlers are characterized by specific morphological characteristics: “accentuated width and girth of the body, proportionally long arms and short legs, a large percentage of active muscular body weight” (Mirzaei et al, 2010). Data collected on average body fat values for Canadian elite male freestyle wrestlers in 1984 were 8.2% for all weight classes excluding the superheavyweights (Sharratt, 1984). Horswill (1988) reported average values of 7.2% bodyfat. Callan et al. (2000) collected data on elite male American wrestlers, excluding open class heavyweights, and found them to lie between 5 and 10 percent bodyfat. Mirzaei et al (2009) studied Iranian Junior freestyle wrestlers and noted an average bodyfat percentage of 10.6%. No published data can be found on the body composition of elite female wrestlers.

Although anthropometry and body composition are important areas to study when profiling athletes, it is not the focus of this article as its relationship to elite freestyle wrestling performance is not clear. Also, the effects of weight loss on performance will not be covered in any depth in this article. It appears that purposeful weight loss and its effects on performance outcomes and physiological function are highly individual and dependent on the magnitude of the weight loss. The major limitation of all previous studies on weight loss and physical performance in wrestlers is that inferences cannot be made to actual wrestling performance (Horswill, 1992).

Pulmonary and Cardiac Function

Very few studies examined pulmonary function amongst this population. Sharratt et al. (1984) found the pulmonary function, resting blood pressure and hematology measurements to “be typical of healthy adult males” and there were no sport-specific differences on these parameters. Sharatt et al. (1984) also reported in elite senior level wrestlers, maximum minute ventilation was low relative to the peak oxygen uptake values and high levels of blood lactate. He hypothesized that elite wrestlers may “hypoventilate during maximum exercise as a result of becoming conditioned to years of restricted breathing” (Sharratt et al., 1984). No data was found on elite females. There is, perhaps, a need for more research in this area.

Data collected on collegiate wrestlers have cardiac stroke volumes and left ventricular volumes similar to non-athletes but smaller than those of endurance-trained athletes. The wall and septum of the left ventricle were greater in the wrestler than in the non-athlete and endurance athlete. Because wrestling does not demand the high cardiac output or stroke volume of endurance sports, an expansion of the left ventricle chamber with training does not occur. In general, there is limited data on Pulmonary and Cardiac function on this population.

Muscle Morphology

Houston et al. (1981) identified the vastus lateralis muscle group as being a representative muscle for the study of wrestling performance. They found significant glycogen depletion in this muscle combined with an elevated blood lactate concentration following maximal effort wrestling. Scientists also biopsied the muscle group; the samples were 52% fast twitch, implying an average aerobic capacity at the cellular level (Sharratt et al., 1984). Sharratt et al. (1984) also measured the succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) activity in the vastus lateralis of senior wrestlers as an indicator or aerobic potential. They reported an activity level indicative of endurance adaptations but not to an exceptional level. Gollnick’s (1982) work indicated that although wrestlers have higher SDH levels than deconditioned males, the levels do not reflect the higher VO2 values the wrestlers possess. The published data in this area was collected on male athletes of varying levels in the mid-1980’s. This is a possible area of future investigation with both elite male and elite female wrestlers.

Strength

Strength is defined as the ability to exert force under finite conditions, independent of time and space. Strength is very much related to both velocity and biomechanics, so interpreting results of strength data when one cannot observe and monitor technique is limiting. In the wrestling literature, strength is often measured by a percentage of 1RM on a multi-joint/primary lift, by hand grip dynamometry and often expressed relative to the mass of the athlete (relative strength).

Rules changes in the 1970’s changed the tactics of the sport of Freestyle wrestling placing importance on an aggressive style of wrestling versus holding or ‘stalling.’ As a result, improving the dynamic strength of wrestlers, in all muscle actions (concentric, isometric and eccentric) became a training focus. Horswill’s review in 1992 compared successful male elite² wrestlers to less successful wrestlers and found that greater strength to be an advantage. However, although his work is very comprehensive, Horswill did not use typical primary exercises for strength assessment. Thus, his data is not particularly useful for the strength and conditioning coach. Yoon (2002) also noted in his works that successful male wrestlers showed higher dynamic and isokinetic strength than unsuccessful wrestlers.

²Elite = International level competitor

A unique approach in how to address strength needs for this population was seen in East Germany. They tested for maximal strength through a 1-repetition max; speed strength by timing the lifting of a weight (75% of your weight class weight) for 8 reps; and tested strength endurance with maximum reps at the weight class standard. They also had performance standards for each weight class (2010 Annual Review of Wrestling Research).

Dr. Boris Podlivaev also shared an updated version of his performance standards at the FILA Scientific Congress held at the Moscow World Championships.

A brief synopsis is included in the chart below, based on weight class. A more comprehensive list with wrestling-specific tests can be found in the literature (Podlivaev, 2010). No information was found on the protocols for these tests or why partial scores were given. The numbers for bench press and cleans appear to be very low as compared to the East Germans standards.

Mizraei’s case study on a World Champion Greco-Roman male wrestler (2010) collected pull-up data of 50 repetitions, (versus the National Iranian norm of 37 reps). This is considerably higher than the Russian data, but ‘how’ the tests were conducted (strict reps versus momentum) was not observed, so the data is difficult to compare.

The research on elite females by Zi-Hong et al. (2013) used several isokinetic tests at two different velocities as well as 5 isotonic exercises for evaluation. These included: Deep squats, Prone rowing, Olympic style deadlifts and Power cleans from the floor and a unique lift called the hold and squat to measure strength in elite female wrestlers. These lifts were chosen because they are part of the Chinese female wrestlers training program. Four weight categories were tested (48kg, 55kg, 63kg, and 72kg). Average values for each lift, across four weight categories, are as follows:

To summarize Zi-Hong’s research, it was found that an Olympic or World Championship medalist generally demonstrated the highest 1RM value for any weight category. Other research also indicated that more experienced and successful wrestlers, as defined by the number of international tournaments, were also stronger (Zi-Hong, 2013).

It is important to mention very few papers used what would be typical strength and power exercises prescribed by a strength and conditioning coach to train and measure strength. It would be ideal to see 1RM strength data on the top male and female Freestyle wrestlers using: Deep squats, bench press, prone rowing and cleans as exercises.

Anaerobic Power

Power is defined as the product of force (in Newtons) and velocity (in meters per second). The ability to produce a high power output is important for wrestlers. Power in wrestling is associated with quick, explosive movements that lead to control of the opponent (Horswill, 1992). Average power or mean power is often equated with anaerobic capacity. It has been reported that anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity may help to differentiate between successful and less successful male and female wrestlers.
A freestyle wrestlers’ anaerobic performances are much more similar to power athletes (sprinters, throwers, weightlifters for example) than endurance athletes. On the basis of equivalent bodyweights (W/kg), male distance runners and ultra marathoners have leg power values of 8.9 and 9.3 W/kg. In contrast, male powerlifters had values of 9.5 W/kg, male college wrestlers 9.4 W/kg, and male gymnasts 9.1 W/kg (Horswill, 1992).

Similarly, the anaerobic power of the upper and lower body of male wrestlers is much greater than the corresponding values in nonathletic men of similar age (Horswill, 1992). The published values on most wrestlers at any level exceed the sixty-fifth percentile of lower body anaerobic capacity and anaerobic power of nonathletic adult males (Horswill, 1992). At the time Horswill published his review, there was very little data comparing elite and non-elite wrestlers using the Wingate test.

Lower body anaerobic power has been evaluated using a vertical jump test with counter-movement. The 1997 United States male freestyle wrestling world team averaged 60 cm (Utter et al., 2002). Unpublished data from the US Olympic Committee (Callan et al., 2000) showed Greco-Roman male wrestlers to have average counter-movement vertical jumps of 62 cm. Russian data by Podlivaev had average scores ranging from 56.70 cm to 66.10 cm. Protocols for the Russian data were not given, and elite female scores on vertical jump were not found.

Upper body anaerobic capacity is frequently evaluated with arm cranking on bicycle ergometers. Performance of the upper limb muscles reflects the potential of muscles to derive ATP via fast glycolysis.

Horswill et al. (1992) had 12 well-trained male collegiate wrestlers perform a multi-stage upper body Wingate test, with 6.5 g per kg of body weight (8 x 15 seconds with a 30 second rest between stages, over 6 minutes). A power production curve over the 8 sprints is graphed. They found sprint power ranged from 3.7 to 4.6 W/kg/bw. This testing has not been reproduced elsewhere and was not conducted on elite level male or female wrestlers, so it is difficult to interpret. Callan (2000) reproduced a similar test with 5, 30-second efforts designed to simulate a 5 minute match. The data collected on his study may not be valid with the rules in place today, as the match periods are shorter. Upper body Wingate normative data seems exclusive to these precise studies.

Female wrestlers in the Zi Hong study (2013) performed a standard wingate test, using a higher relative load of .08 x body mass and demonstrated maximal peak power values between 7.04 W/kg and 9.12 W/kg. It is important to mention, for the purpose of comparison, most normative data using the 30 second Wingate (lower body) for elite female athletes is based on .075 x body mass. It must be noted male athletes generally have 10% and 17% higher peak and mean power than women when expressed relative to kg lean body mass (LBM).

Blood lactate readings have been evaluated post-match as well as after Wingate tests and other tests of maximal effort in several studies. Average post-match values (5 min) for elite males on the Turkish National Greco-Roman team in 2006 was 12.3 mmol/L. In Zi-Hong’s works post-Wingate blood lactate values reached an average peak of 11.69 mmol/L (2013). What might be more interesting and relevant is Dr. Ramazan Savranbasi’s work where the Lactate recovery co-efficient is calculated following a match or a standardized exercise bout (2010 Wrestling Research Annual Review).

In Zi-Hong’s work with elite females, mean peak power, relative to body mass (in Watts per kilogram), fatigue index (%) and 400-meter time demonstrated no significant difference between weight categories (2013). The 400-meter time was, however, significantly correlated with maximal peak power.

Callan et al. (2000) investigated a rope climb as a means to evaluate upper-body muscular anaerobic power and endurance. The athlete was instructed to climb a 5.6-meter rope hand over hand arms only. The total time was recorded to cover this distance. Although this is a highly task-specific test, it is a useful field test. Average times were 9.3 seconds for the 1997 World (male) U.S.A. Freestyle team. No other studies have replicated this test making it difficult to create an optimal standard or correlated a result with wrestling performance. The Russians have used a 4-meter hand only climb, but only test results were given (time) versus exact protocols.

Anaerobic capacity was measured in elite Canadian freestyle male wrestlers using the Anaerobic Speed Test (Sharatt, 1984) The athletes performed two maximal efforts, separated by a 4-minute rest. Blood lactate values were taken 5 minutes into recovery. Athletes ran the first repetition in an average of 55.6 seconds for all weight classes (individual weight classes were not indicated) and for the second interval, an average of 45.3 seconds. No normative data for elite wrestlers using this test is available. Blood lactate levels read an average of 14 mmol/L, similar to values for other athletes in sports with a major anaerobic contribution (Sharatt, 1984). At that time, the best Russian wrestler generated over 20 mmol/L (Sharratt, 1984).

Anaerobic power and capacity may be the points of difference between successful and less successful wrestlers. The anaerobic power and capacities of elite junior (18-20 years old) wrestlers are greater by as much as 13% than those of non-elite wrestlers of similar weight, age and wrestling experience (Horswill, 1992). The Olympic and World Champion female test results on both the Wingate and 400-meter run are at the upper end or the best value (Zi Hong et al., 2013).

With respect to anaerobic testing, it appears there are no universal tests for wrestlers and that perhaps a battery of tests might serve to highlight power objectives as well as limiters in performance.

Speed of Movement

The speed at which an athlete move his body in response to a stimulus is an important quality in wrestling. Much of the research on wrestlers on this quality dates back to 1958, where they determined reaction time to be non-critical (Horswill, 1992). Taylor (1979) was the first to establish a wrestling specific test of reaction time, but the subject pool was too small (Horswill, 1992). More recently, Mirzaei et al. (2010) collected data using an instrumental jumping pad in front of a reaction time apparatus. The athletes were instructed to react to a visual stimuli by moving his foot from the pad. The best of 3 trials was collected for each subject. The National norm in Iran was 391 ms (Mirzaei, 2010). No other published data from other countries is available. And no published data on control subjects were available.

Very few researchers have investigated and published linear speed or agility data on wrestlers. Mirzaei et al. (2009), tested speed with a 40-yard sprint, like the NFL combine. Elite, junior wrestlers performed the sprint in an average of 5.14 seconds. The agility test was a 4 x 9-meter shuttle (Mirzaei, 2009). Average times were 7.6 seconds touching a sensor. No information was captured on the logistics of testing and whether or not the 40-yard times were electronic. There is great likelihood that these tests are conducted routinely with elite male Iranian wrestlers, but the data was not accessible via conventional routes.

Flexibility

During wrestling, the limbs are forced through extreme ranges of motion. When flexibility is limited there may be performance impairments. However, there is no conclusive evidence that flexibility training directly improves wrestling performance.

In Horswill’s research findings, wrestlers had a greater rotation and abduction and adduction of the shoulders than nonathletic controls (1992). While neck flexibility was also high in the wrestlers, wrist flexibility was lower than the non-athletes (Horswill, 1992). Comparing the successful wrestler with the less successful wrestler, it was shown that flexibility might be a discriminating variable (Horswill, 1992). Yoon (2002) reported the flexibility of elite wrestlers is higher than lower level wrestlers.

In Mizraei’s works, he evaluated flexibility on a senior world champion Greco-Roman wrestler (2010). The tests included were: The sit and reach, the shoulder-wrist elevation test and the trunk and neck-elevation test. The latter two tests are essentially tests of extension. Scores were listed on a table with no units of measure leaving them difficult to interpret. Other normative data for elite wrestlers using these tests were not found.

Generally speaking, flexibility of elite male and female wrestlers must be investigated in a comprehensive manner to establish normative values.

Aerobic Power & Capacity

When wrestling matches were 9 minutes long (1976), a much higher emphasis was placed on aerobic power. Coaches were recruiting athletes with VO2 max’s 60-70+ ml/kg/min (Sharratt, 1984). Today, matches are shorter (2 rounds of 3 minutes each, with a 30-second break). Therefore, it is possible that aerobic power is not as critical for match success as previously suggested. According to Zi-Hong’s work, maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) does not appear to differentiate between elite female wrestlers at different levels of competition (2013). The capacity to provide energy by means of anaerobic pathways is now considered more critical to performance.

In general, elite male wrestlers have peak V02 values of between 50.4 and 62.4 ml/kg/min (Horswill, 1992). Yoon (2002) reported that the maximal oxygen uptake of national and international male wrestlers taking part in international competition has been shown to be 53 to 56 (ml·kg-1 min-1). An article published by Huber-Wozniak (2009) found an average Vo2 in male elite wrestlers was 59.8 ml/kg/min, and females were 49.7 ml/kg/min. Total oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold, expressed as a percentage of VO2 max, was higher in the female wrestlers (Huber-Wozniak, 2009). Higher oxygen utilization at anaerobic threshold might provide useful insight into gender differences between elite male and female wrestlers. At the time of this specific publication, matches could last as long as 7 minutes and 30 seconds.

Elite Chinese female wrestlers in the more recent Zi-Hong study (2013) reported similar findings across weight classes with 41.70 to 55.60 ml/kg/min VO2 max scores. Relative scores were not significantly different between 48, 55 and 63 kg weight classes, but the 72kg weight class was significantly lower.

Both gender sets of data were obtained using a treadmill protocol. However, this evaluative measure might be questionable being that wrestlers may or may not partake in running training sessions and therefore may not be familiar with that modality. When a cycle ergometer was employed with elite male wrestlers (Horswill,1992) reported peak oxygen uptake values of 45.4 – 64.0 ml/kg/min. No published data for elite females is available using a cycle ergometer.

In Zi-Hong’s study (2013), the Elite Chinese female wrestlers also completed a 3,200-meter time trial run. The average time for all weight classes was 14 minutes and 1 second. The 3,200 meter run times were not significantly different between the weight categories. No other data for female wrestlers is available using this field test.

Putting this into perspective with other populations, elite male and female wrestlers have peak oxygen uptake capacities that are average to above average compared with untrained and sprint trained individuals but are below average compared with the endurance athlete.

In reviewing studies comparing the peak oxygen uptake of successful and less successful wrestlers, it appears that oxygen uptake is not a major determinant of success. The Olympic and World Championship medalist wrestlers from China showed no consistent pattern of having the best score in the 3,200-meter run or Vo2 max treadmill test (Zi-Hong, 2013). Horswill et al. (1989) show that at three levels, Olympic, collegiate and scholastic, the peak oxygen consumption is not significantly different between successful and less successful counterparts.
Collectively, aerobic metabolism is an important fundamental pre-requisite to achieve good performance, but it may not be a major determinant of success in all weight categories and genders. However, this is a question that has yet to be clearly answered (Utter et al., 2002). In the 2010 Annual Review of Wrestling Research, top male wrestlers were noted to have VO2 scores over 60 ml/kg/min.

It is also important to note the contribution of central and peripheral fitness to peak oxygen uptake may vary between the upper and lower body. Specifically, peripheral fitness tends to make a larger contribution to peak oxygen uptake for arm cranking than does central fitness. Perhaps peripheral muscular endurance needs to be further and more formally investigated.

Concluding Statement Re: Characteristics

With the current duration of international matches and an emphasis on an aggressive style of wrestling that promotes high point scoring maneuvers in international competition, strength, anaerobic power, and anaerobic capacity are the dominant physical qualities of successful wrestlers (Yoon, 2002).

Collectively, the research indicates that no single physiological parameter in isolation determines elite wrestling performance. However, the strength and power values of Olympic and World Championship medalists are at the upper end of the parameter’s range whereas aerobic power may not separate Collegiate and National level from World (elite) level.

The Puzzle — The Interference Effect

Strength and Conditioning for wrestlers is a huge puzzle, especially when we factor in technical and tactical development, which can also be quite taxing on the athlete. Wrestling requires the development of several qualities simultaneously: Aerobic power, maximal strength, power, muscular endurance, and speed. The adaptations for resistance training, speed training, and endurance training are different and in many instances conflict. Thus, programming strategies run the risk of the interference effect.

Concurrent training, by definition, is “performing aerobic exercise within the same training program as resistance training “ (Bagley, 2016). Wilson (2012) defined it as “the inclusion of resistance training combined with aerobic exercise in a single program.” The “Interference Effect” which is the plausible result of concurrent training, is where adaptations from endurance exercise differ or even conflict with adaptations from strength and power exercise.

Numerous studies have concluded that it is difficult to concurrently develop strength, power, speed and aerobic fitness for several reasons including the tug of war of the both the Nervous and Endocrine systems during the process of adaptation. Several biological theories can help explain the incompatibility of all of these fitness qualities such as: Changes in motor unit recruitment, Residual fatigue, Specific adaptation in the muscles and the nervous system, and Hormonal alterations. This is by no means an exclusive list. What is important to mention here with respect to the research on concurrent training is this: All studies are subject to careful interpretation; the findings and practical application are always subject to the very pertinent question:

Who were the subjects and what conditions were present during the time of data collection?

Adaptation to exercise is directly related to the training stimulus an athlete is exposed to. This is the fundamental premise behind the SAID principle. This is a true, yet an incomplete statement. All biological systems are variable and influenced by a myriad of factors. In order to truly elucidate the effects of a training intervention, athletes must be monitored daily, and the coach must be responsive in his or her intervention, keeping the training objectives in mind without sacrificing the state of the human organism.

Conventional strength and conventional endurance modes of exercise training induce markedly different chronic adaptations when performed as a single modality. It is typical of strength-training programs to involve large muscle group exercises with high resistance and low repetition with the goal to improve the force and power output of skeletal muscle and neural signaling to the involved musculature. Chronic exposure to high-intensity strength training results in muscle cell hypertrophy via increases in protein synthesis and accretion of contractile proteins (Passelergue & Lac, 2012) and improvements in neural drive.

In comparison, exclusive endurance-training programs typically utilize low-resistance, high repetition exercises that involve large muscle groups and are cyclic and repetitive. Muscle tissue responds by degrading myofibrillar protein to optimize oxygen uptake kinetics (Passelergue & Lac, 2012). Chronic adaptations to endurance exercise include increases in aerobic enzyme activity, mitochondrial density, vascularization in the trained muscle bed and improved maximal oxygen uptake (Hunter et al., 1987).

It is, however, important to note that the two are not always mutually exclusive, even when performed on their own. Some forms of strength and endurance training programs may not reflect the above adaptations. Some strength training programs have produced very small, albeit significant increases in VO2 max as well as muscle endurance (Hickson, 1988) and some endurance programs have increased strength and muscle fiber size (Gollnick, 1973). It is not as cut and dry as it may seem.

Numerous studies have highlighted the consequences of the interference effect on maximal dynamic strength, speed running and maximal torque, especially at fast angular velocities (Robineau et al., 2014). Other investigations proposed that these impairments are largely debatable (Robineau et al., 2014). Several studies also highlight improvements in peak oxygen consumption and markers of aerobic capacity (Robineau et al., 2014).

Research, however, rarely reflects the normal training and competition schedules of elite wrestlers. Several studies reviewed in this topic area used untrained subjects, which are not a comparable population to wrestlers. The levels of speed, strength, and power, as well as training experience among highly trained wrestlers, far exceed that of the average recreationally active person.

“The real question lies in whether or not the interference effect has a universal phenomena or if it is very much context specific.”

Concurrent Training Research Review

Hickson began with the first concurrent training study in 1980. His intention was to “investigate how individuals adapt to a combination of strength and endurance training as compared to adaptations produced by either strength or endurance training separately.”

Hickson’s findings demonstrated that “simultaneously training for strength and endurance results in a reduced capacity to develop strength, but did not affect the magnitude of increase in VO2 max.” Delving deeper into the guts of his research included:

• Only using recreationally active subjects,
• Using subjects as old as 37 years,
• Strength training 5x/week,
• Endurance training 6 times per week,
• Concurrent training for 10 weeks straight.
• Both strength and endurance qualities were trained on the same day and only separated by 2 hours of rest.
• There was no indication in the methods of which quality was trained first.

Pre and post testing measures were valid and reliable but there were no measures of the force-velocity relationship in this study. Although Hickson’s works opened the investigative gates for this area of study, it is difficult to apply his research findings to highly trained athletes who require high levels of power to be successful at the world stage in their sport.

The reality is, combining methods of strength and power training with conditioning sessions is commonplace for a strength and conditioning coach. Much of the literature suggests that under concurrent training conditions, the amount of work that can be performed in each strength-training session could be negatively impacted by residual fatigue from prior endurance training. This may result in compromised strength improvements over the course of a training program.

The fatigue hypothesis it is actually quite difficult to interpret as the cause of such fatigue could be based on a variety of physiological factors such as hydrogen ion accumulation and subsequent blood pH change, depletion of muscle energy supply, neural fatigue, or structural damage to muscle fibers. This is beyond the scope of this article but should be acknowledged with respect to physiological impairments and timelines.

Sale’s work (1989), conducted over 20 weeks examined the long-term effects of variations of recovery periods between strength and aerobic training sessions on strength from both same-day and alternate-day concurrent training. Although the training programs were identical, alternate day training showed significantly greater improvements in maximal leg press strength than same-day training at both 10 and 20 weeks. Their findings suggest 24 hours of recovery following aerobic training (Sale, 1989).

Abernethy (1993) demonstrated that isokinetic strength was impaired for up to 4 hours following high-intensity aerobic interval training. It could be assumed that isotonic strength would be impaired for up to 4 hours as well (Abernethy, 1993). These findings suggest compromises in strength may last up to 8 hours post-aerobic training, which further supports a longer recovery period between sessions.

Other studies (Sporer and Wenger, 2003) provide more insight on residual fatigue from prior aerobic (endurance) training. Their results indicate aerobic training at a variety of durations and intensities negatively impacted both isotonic and isokinetic strength performance at both 30 minutes and 4 hours post-session (Sporer and Wenger, 2003). It was highlighted when recovery from aerobic exercise was increased to 8 hours, strength performance was not compromised (Sporer and Wenger, 2003). Maximal aerobic training appears to similarly affect strength performance as does submaximal aerobic training when equated for duration. Although aerobic training primarily recruits slow-twitch (ST) fibers, as the intensity of training increases, FT muscle fibers are recruited and taxed to a greater extent (Sporer and Wenger, 2003). It would be expected, then, that higher-intensity aerobic training would result in a greater amount of fatigue prior to strength training. However, no effect of type of aerobic training was shown (Sporer and Wenger, 2003). This provides the coach with a wide range of training intensities to prescribe when aerobic training must precede strength training (Sporer and Wenger, 2003).

Research conducted by Wilson et al. (2012) identified which prescriptive components of endurance training (Mode, Duration, Frequency) were detrimental to resistance training outcomes. A meta-analysis of 21 studies was conducted. As a large portion of the literature suggests, aerobic capacity was not inhibited with concurrent training as compared to endurance training alone (Wilson et al., 2012). Wilson’s meta-analysis focused on the training outcomes: strength, hypertrophy, and power. A study design criterion, such as the use of trained subjects, was not considered. However, some conclusions are worth discussing.

Wilson et al. (2012) found that modality (type of endurance stimulus, i.e., biking) takes first place on the interruption in strength and power adaptations. Decrements were seen in strength and hypertrophy when strength training was combined with running versus cycling (Wilson et al., 2012). It should be noted though that running resulted in a larger decline of fat mass (Wilson et al., 2012).

Interference effects were also primarily body part specific as decrements in strength and power were seen in lower body exercises versus upper body exercises after a lower-body dominant endurance activity was performed (Wilson et al. 2012). It could be hypothesized that upper-body endurance training could negatively impact upper body strength development.

Overall training volume accounted for a small portion of the interference effects (Wilson et al., 2012). Volume is typically defined as the total amount of work completed in a training session. For endurance training this is usually based on time at particular intensities. This meta-analysis also suggested that shorter-duration, high-intensity sprinting does not result in decrements in strength and power (Wilson et al., 2012). However, specific prescription examples were not given. The optimal amount of endurance volume, when trained concurrently with strength, appears to be less than 30 minutes per session, 3 times or less per week (Wilson et al., 2012).

Much of the research investigates concurrent training prescription on strength, hypertrophy and aerobic capacity outcomes. However, power, may, in fact, be the most susceptible quality. While Hakkinen et al. (2003) reported similar increases in maximum EMG activity in both concurrent trained and strength trained only individuals, increases in rate of force development and associated rapid neural activation of trained skeletal muscle were only seen in the strength trained individuals. It was suggested, “the addition of endurance training may have suppressed the improvement in rapid neural activation in those who trained concurrently” (2003).

Jones et al., (2015) also found inhibition of lower-body power development after 3 and 6 weeks of concurrent training when compared with strength training alone indicating that power phenotypes are more susceptible to interference than maximal strength indices. Counter-movement jumps, rate of force development and peak torques at high velocities were all negatively impacted as a result of combing strength and endurance training, yet maximal strength remained uninhibited (Jones et al.,. 2015).

However, these findings are not consistent with other research (O’Sullivan, 2013). O-Sullivan suggests that concurrent training in well-conditioned athletes may not attenuate neuromuscular adaptations to strength training. In fact, intelligent sequencing of training may be the key to allowing elite athletes to perform concurrent strength and endurance training without negative impacts on anaerobic power performance (Abernethy, 1993).

Programming Considerations for the Elite Freestyle Wrestler

• One must prioritize fitness components into the training plan, possibly emphasizing only one or two components in a mesocycle.
• Everything counts as training stress. It is best practice to monitor and quantify all training volume loads, including wrestling practices and S&C sessions.
• In terms of component order, perform strength work well before endurance work (24 hours is ideal). Do not program strength training after endurance training.
• If 2 components of fitness must be trained on the same day, separate strength training sessions and endurance sessions by a minimum of 8 hours.
• Do not program strength training after wrestling practice, unless it is only technical practice. In this case, rest a minimum of 4 hours.
• Directly after wrestling practice an athlete may perform low-intensity endurance training as a means of recovery.
• Avoid adding extra endurance sessions for the purpose of weight cutting. Instead, work with a Registered Dietician to achieve this goal.
• Select a modality of endurance exercise that closely resembles the DEMANDS of the sport to avoid occurrence of competing adaptations.
• Avoid long duration endurance exercise; Keep sessions under 30 minutes total training time.
• Endurance exercise should be performed no more than 3 times per week.
• Running might be a good modality for athletes seeking to lose bodyfat. However, it might be a poor choice for heavier athletes as it is high impact and has a large eccentric component associated with muscle injury and longer recovery timelines.
• Select endurance exercise where one can maintain a very high pace (work rate) to avoid loss of muscle mass, strength and power.
• Keep lower body lifting sessions to 2 days per week, separated by 48-72 hours.
• Create a split routine if endurance (conditioning sessions) cannot be programmed away from strength sessions. For example, perform explosive medicine ball throws, bench press and back exercises with a high-intensity cycling interval session on the same day.
• Be a flexible coach. At the end of the day, to be a great wrestler, one must wrestle. Although strength and conditioning does have a big role in the athlete’s development, it does not replace the valuable time spent on the mats.
• Work with wrestling coaches to train specific energy systems at practice in a more competitive and sport-specific environment. Work together to create the most ideal training schedule for your athlete.

Future Directions

Experienced coaches who work with highly trained strength-power athletes would question most of the practical application of the research on concurrent training to date as it has often been conducted on untrained subjects for too short of an intervention period. Thus, research findings will be more helpful when the subjects tested are trained and include technical and tactical training as part of their overall training plan. With experienced wrestlers, the use of RPE during both practice and matches combined with duration can give investigators good insight into total volume loads at wrestling practice. Different technical skills practiced by the wrestler elicit very different levels of muscular effort, so this must be considered in the overall training program. Practice conditions can be classified as high intensity or low intensity: Live go’s and match specific work to rest ratios are all high intensity. Technical, slower pace partner work might be considered low intensity. Heart rate data might not be helpful as a means to categorize intensity due to the nature of the work. If we consider sport-specific drills and practice settings as specific modalities of endurance training, we might be able to evaluate their impact on strength, speed and power outcomes.

Finally, a more holistic approach to adaptation must also be examined with mention of life stress levels, sleep patterns, nutrition practice, relaxation strategies and other important factors that can make or break the adaptation process. Research on concurrent training so far has ignored these seemingly outside factors and their impact on recovery. Although case study research is often frowned upon for lack of statistical significance, perhaps this is the new frontier in examining a more realistic study design and training outcomes.

Final Message

Understanding the demands of the sport of wrestling is of huge value to the strength & conditioning coach and sport scientist. The application of this knowledge must incorporate all dimensions of physiology, biomechanics and sport medicine with the combined intuition and coaching ability of the elite coach. A comprehensive review of fatigue models and Hans Selye’s works is a terrific place to begin general investigation of the process of adaptation. The study and dissection of training practice of sprinters, throwers, jumpers, gymnasts, weightlifters, GS lifters, rowers, swimmers and endurance athletes also helps one understand the training process. It is from studying these less chaotic or purist sports that one can begin to understand how the athlete may or may not adapt to a training program that involves the development of several physical qualities at once (Tsatsouline, Personal Communication, 2016).

“Sport science research does not provide all of the answers. We must maintain our senses and humanity in all that we do as coaches.” — Coach Bott

 

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. ABERNETHY, P.J. Influence of acute endurance activity on isokinetic strength. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 7:141–146. 1993.
2. ABERNETHY, P.J., AND B.M. QUIGLEY. Concurrent strength and endurance training of the elbow flexors. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 7:234–240. 1993.
3. BAKER, D.G., AND NEWTON, R.U. Adaptations in upper-body maximal strength and power output resulting from long-term resistance training in experienced strength-power athletes. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 20 (3): 541-546, 2006.
4. BARBAS, I ET AL. Physiological and performance adaptations of elite Greco-Roman wrestlers during a one-day tournament. European Journal of Applied Physiology 111: 1421-1436. 2011.
5. BELL, G.J., S.R. PETERSEN, H. QUINNEY, AND H.A. WENGER. Sequencing of endurance and high-velocity strength training. International Journal of Sports Medicine 13:214–219. 1988.
6. BELL, G.J., SYROTUIK, D. et al. Effect of concurrent strength and endurance training on skeletal muscle properties and hormones concentrations in humans. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 81: 418-427. 2000.
7. CALLAN SD, et al. Physiological profiles of elite freestyle wrestlers. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 14(2): 162–169, 2000.
8. CHILIBECK, P.D., SYROTUIK, D and BELL, G.J. The effect of concurrent strength and endurance training on quantitative estimates of subsarcolemmal and intermyofibrillar mitochondria. International Journal of Sports Medicine 23: 33-39. 2002.
9. DOCHERTY, D., AND B. SPORER. A proposed model for examining the interference phenomenon between concurrent aerobic and strength training. Sports Medicine 30:385–394. 2000.
10. DUDLEY, G.A., W.M. ABRAHAM, AND R.L. TERJUNG. Influence of exercise intensity and duration on biochemical adaptations in skeletal muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology 53:844–850. 1982.
11. DUDLEY, G.A., AND R. DJAMIL. Incompatibility of endurance and strength training modes of exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology 53: 1446–1451. 1985.
12. GARCIA-PALLERAS J et al. Physical fitness factors to predict male Olympic wrestling performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology 111: 1747–1758, 2011.
13. GOLLNICK, P.D. Metabolism of substrates: energy substrate metabolism during exercise and as modified by training. Symposium: Metabolic and Nutritional Aspects of Physical Exercise. April 11, 1983.
14. HAKKINEN, K., ALEN, M., KOMI, P.V. Neuromuscular, anaerobic and aerobic performance characteristics of elite power athletes. European Journal of Applied Physiology 53: 97-105. 1984.
15. HAKKINEN K, ALEN M, KRAEMER W et al. Neuromuscular adaptations during concurrent strength and endurance training versus strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology 89: 42-52. 2003.
16. HENNESSEY, L.C., AND A.W.S. WATSON. The interference effects of training for strength and endurance simultaneously. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 8:12–19. 1994.
17. HORSWILL C.A. Applied physiology of amateur wrestling. Sports Medicine 14(2). 114-143. 1992.
18. HORSWILL C.A. SCOTT, J.R. ET AL. Physiological profile of elite junior wrestlers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 59 (3). 257-261. 1988.
19. HICKSON, R.C. Interference of strength development by simultaneously training for strength and endurance. European Journal of Applied Physiology 45:255–263. 1980.
20. HUBNER-WOZNIAK, E. KOSMOL, A AND GAJEWSKI, J. Aerobic fitness of elite female and male wrestlers. Biology of Sport. Vol 26(4): 339-348. 2009.
21. HUNTER, G. DEMMENT, R and MILLER, D. Development of strength and maximum oxygen uptake during simultaneous training for strength and endurance. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 27 (3), 1987.
22. KRAEMER WJ, FRY AC, et al. Physiological and performance responses to tournament wrestling. Med Science Sports Exercercise 33: 1367–1378, 2001.
23. KRAEMER WJ, Vescovi JD, and Dixon P. The physiological basis of wrestling: Implications for conditioning programs. Strength & Conditioning Journal 26: 10–15, 2004.
24. KRAEMER, W.J., J.F. PATTON, et al. Compatibility of high-intensity strength and endurance training on hormonal and skeletal muscle adaptations. Journal of Applied Physiology 78:976–989. 1995.
25. LEVERITT, M., AND P.J. ABERNETHY. Acute effects of high-intensity endurance exercise on subsequent resistance activity. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 13:47–51. 1999.
26. LEVERITT, M., P.J. ABERNETHY, B.K. BARRY, AND P.A. LOGAN. Concurrent strength and endurance training: A review. Sport Medicine 28:413–427. 1999.
27. LEVERITT, M., H. MACLAUGHLIN, AND P.J. ABERNETHY. Changes in leg strength 8 and 32 hours after endurance exercise. Journal of Sport Science 18:865–871. 2000.
28. MIRGHANI, S. ET AL. Influence of strength, endurance and concurrent training on the lipid profile and blood testosterone and cortisol response in young, male wrestlers. Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity. 6 (1) 7-16. 2014.
29. MIRZAEI, B AND LOTFI, N. Physiological profile of a world wrestling champion. Presented at the 2010 Annual Review of Wrestling Research.
30. MIRZAEI, B, CURBY, D ET AL. Physiological profile of elite Iranian junior freestyle wrestlers. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23(8). 2339-2344, 2009.
31. MIRZAEI, B. GHAFOURI, A. A physiological profile of Iranian senior Greco-Roman wrestlers. Journal of Sport Sciences. 3(5). 8. 2007.
32. MURACH, K and BAGLEY, J. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy with concurrent exercise training: contrary evidence for an interference effect. Sports Medicine March 2016.
33. O’SULLIVAN, D. Concurrent strength/power and endurance training of players in elite football codes: A brief review. Journal of Australian Strength & Conditioning. 21(1), 52, 2013.
34. POPADIC, O.; GACESA JZ, et al. Maximal anaerobic power test in athletes of different sport disciplines. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 23 (3): 751-755, 2009.
35. ROBINEAU et al. Specific training effects of concurrent aerobic and strength exercises depend on recovery duration. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 30(3), 672-683, 2014.
36. SALE, D.G., J.D. MACDOUGALL, I. JACOBS, AND S. GARNER. Comparison of two regimens of concurrent strength and endurance training. Medical Science in Sports and Exercise 22 (3). 1989.
37. SALE, D.G., J.D. MACDOUGALL, I. JACOBS, AND S. GARNER. Interaction between concurrent strength and endurance training. Journal of Applied Physiology 68:260–270. 1990.
38. SHARRATT, M.T. ET AL. A physiological profile of elite Canadian freestyle wrestlers. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science 11(2): 100-105. 1986.
39. SILVA, R. ET AL. Concurrent training with different aerobic exercises. International Journal of Sports Medicine 33: 627-634, 2012.
40. SPORER B and WENGER, H. Effects of Aerobic Exercise on Strength Performance Following Various
Periods of Recovery. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2003, 17(4), 638–644. 2003.
41. UTTER, A.C., M.H. STONE, H. O’BRYANT H, R. SUMINSKI, AND B. WARD. Sport-seasonal changes in body composition, strength, and power of college wrestlers. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 12:266–271. 1998.
42. UTTER, A.C. et al. Physiological profile of an elite freestyle wrestler preparing for competition: a case study. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 16(2) 308-315. 2002.
43. WILSON, J et al. Concurrent training: A meta-analysis examining interference of aerobic and resistance exercises. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 26 (8). 2293-2307. 2012.
44. Yoon J. Physiological profiles of elite senior wrestlers. Sports Medicine 32: 225–233, 2002.
45. ZI-HONG H, LIAN-SHI F et al. Physiological profiles of elite Chinese female wrestlers. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 27(9): 2374-2395. 2013.

I’m not big on pushing single training exercises, as too many athletes tend to search for the “magic pill” that will transform their athleticism. If one exercise might be close to an enchanted pharmaceutical for the vertical jump and explosive power, however, it would be the depth jump.

As a young athlete, I tried any training method I could get my hands on to improve my speed and jumping ability, as well as inventing many others. I tried high-repetition plyometric programs, ran stairs, did wall sits, basic strength training, and more. I acquired a few small gains here and there, but nothing dramatic. The search continued.

When I was 16, I found a plyometric program claiming to be more “science–oriented” in the back of a basketball magazine. Ordering that program altered the course of my athletic career—maybe even my life. The program was based, not on high-frequency plyometric exercises that were the flavor of the day, but rather on a low-frequency, high-intensity performance of a key exercise: the depth jump. I was sold hook, line, and sinker after reading the short manual and began my depth-jumping journey to a higher vertical jump and better athleticism.

Within two months of weekly high-intensity depth jump workouts, I found that not only had my jumping improved by around 5” (12cm) off both one- and two-leg styles of jumping (enough to score me a windmill dunk), but I was also faster and had increased speed and agility on the court. My track seasons also benefited, as I held the state lead in the high jump for several months during my senior year of high school.

All that being said, the depth jump is probably the most powerful exercise an athlete can utilize in terms of specific force overload. From Russian high jumping to cult sprint training methodology and commercial basketball performance programming, the depth jump is widely used.
The problem is that it is also the most misrepresented and misperformed exercise among many athletic populations. Much of this problem is due to a lack of understanding of the theory behind the depth jump, and what athletes are trying to accomplish in its performance!

Anatomy of the perfect depth jump

When it comes to training for any sport skill, specificity and overload are two principles you must have strongly in your corner. If you want to jump higher, something like jumps with a barbell on your back does a great job of overloading the jump pattern, but an external weight high on the spine will always cause more accessory recruitment than typical jumping. While having a barbell on one’s back is a nice way to overload, the brain reacts to this movement with a perception of a vertically raised center of mass, subtly altering jump biomechanics.

Weighted jumping (such as a weight vest) has its own shortcomings. Slapping weight on athletes and having them jump is great, but it tends to overload the “up” or concentric portion of the jump more than it does the “down” or eccentric portion—the portion of the jump where the greatest amount of energy is stored. This energy storage in the eccentric phase will largely determine the outcome of the jump.

With a need for eccentric strength in mind, enter the depth jump—an exercise that involves the following sequence:

• A drop from a box, bench, or elevated surface individualized for the strength or reactive component that is being trained, the current training intensity, and the individual plyometric ability of the athlete. The height of the box can be anywhere from 6” to 50,” and there is no magic number for any particular athlete. Rather, the height is determined by the ability of the athlete and the goal of the exercise.
• The initial drop off the box should typically be performed down at a 30-45 degree angle (not straight down in a 90-degree fall) to increase the contribution of the posterior chain of the jump, and promote some forward-moving reactivity. Variations of depth jumping may include lateral drops off the box with a straight fall and reaction, or jumps for distance off a box, which are taken into reactive jumps for distance.
• At the end of the drop, the athlete will hit the ground as softly as possible, and then reverse the movement into a jump upwards. The ground contact time present in the jump should be a reflection of the desired outcome of the movement, whether it is speed- or strength-oriented.
• The athlete will often, but not always, perform the jump upwards at a mirror angle of how they hit the ground. A common mistake is to jump straight up, perpendicular to the ground, as this again reduces the balance of forces present in the jump and puts too much strain on the quads and patellar tendon. From a biomechanical perspective, jumping straight up, rather than out, actually represents jumping backward more than jumping up.
• The upward jump after the initial landing should be maximal. This is the biggest transgression coaches commit against the plyometric gods. There are situations, such as early season training periods or working with developmental athletes, where maximal depth jumping may not be called for. In this case, I wouldn’t label the exercise “depth jumping.” To have a better maximal depth jump, outcome goals such as an overhead target or high collapsible hurdle should be used. We’ll get more into this in a bit. For now, here are videos of two types of outcome goal depth jumps that are performed correctly: the hurdle depth jump and target depth jump.

Video 1. Depth Jump with Target Object.

Video 2. Depth Jump Over Hurdle.

General guidelines for implementing depth jumps in a program

Now that we know what a good depth jump looks like, how and when do you implement them in a training program, and at what intensity?

First, when are athletes ready for depth jumps? Well, watching school children jump off various playground apparatuses would suggest that they might be good candidates, even if they aren’t squatting twice their bodyweight yet. In reality, there is a two-fold rationale for determining readiness for depth jumping in the program: training preparation and chronological age.

When people think of training preparation, they usually consider things like squat to bodyweight ratio, as well as aptitude in less intense plyometric activity. My answer to the preparation question is: If the athlete can absorb and react to the jump with good technique, there is no reason why a “strength deficit” should hold them back. Some athletes are just not designed to be strong in a deep squat. Personally, I’ve seen high jumpers in the 2.20m range who could barely squat their bodyweight, but could do any plyometric you asked. If you asked these athletes to achieve a 1.75x or 2.0x bodyweight squat before depth jumping, you would probably be waiting forever.
The second portion of readiness for depth jumps is the chronological argument. Just because an athlete can do depth jumps, does that mean they should? We’ll touch on this at the end of this article. Generally speaking, an athlete is best suited for depth jumps, at least the intense versions, after they have reached their peak height and are close to physical maturity. This isn’t so much for safety as it is for issues of long-term athletic development and the prevention of early intensification and peaking.

Now, the matter of intensity (drop height). It is the most immediate factor present in the movement, and the one most likely to influence the buy-in effect of the exercise due to the positive momentum of results from correct performance.

Using a too-high box will result in fear, high-stress landings, and potential injury. A “safe” box height for any athlete, regardless of the training goal, is one in which they land and then:

• Stick the landing for several seconds, in the case of a depth landing, if needed.
• Avoid their heels slamming down and creating a loud slapping noise.
• Being able to maintain the landing with good posture and without excess strain in the neck and face.
• Retaining control of their knee valgus (inward turn). A small amount of valgus is acceptable for some athletes, but typically indicates either poor hip control or lack of leg strength in the developmental stage of that athlete’s career.
• Staying in control of their maximal knee bend. This is individual to each athlete, but a coach should be able to notice if the force of the drop is driving an athlete into excess knee flexion.

If you are using outcome goals, increasing the box height until an athlete’s rebound jump performance starts to decrease significantly is also a nice way to determine an athlete’s reactive ability and which box they are ready to use. If the best clearance an athlete can manage is a 48” hurdle off a 24” box, and they can still clear the hurdle jumping off 30” and 36” boxes, but a 48” hurdle clearance off a 42” box is no longer possible, you know that 36” is a good high-intensity choice, while 24”-30” will work well for reduced ground-contact time work.
When in doubt of box height, be conservative. It is better to make an error in lowering a box 4” from the optimal level than to go 4” the other way! Nobody’s season gets ruined because they used boxes on the lower end of a possible range.

If you have a contact mat, it is useful practice to record athletes’ ground-contact times from various box heights as well. An athlete may be able to jump 30” from a 24-, 30- and 36-inch box, but you may find that their ground contact times increase significantly in the process. This will be important information when we get into the differences between the speed and strength orientations of depth jump performance.

The important difference of Depth Jump vs. Drop Jump

Natalia Verkhoshansky, daughter of the legendary depth jump inventor Yuri Verkhoshansky, has shed light on different ways of implementing depth jumps in training. She places the exercise into two distinct categories: the drop jump and the depth jump. Both involve dropping from a box and rebounding for maximal height upon landing, but have important differences that can help us gain greater insight into the actual purpose of the exercise itself.

The drop jump is a type of depth jump characterized by minimal knee flexion and minimal ground contact time upon landing. The recommended box height of the drop jump is very low, around 8-24 inches (20-60cm). This is a common prescription of many track and field coaches, who don’t want to lose ground contact time or landing quality.

A drop jump can also include a more flat-footed landing, which caters towards the instant reversal of direction of the movement. I had discussions in my grad school years with experienced track coaches who were adamant about the need for a flat-footed landing, where previously I had seen plenty of sources that cited landing on the balls of the feet. The difference here in landing isn’t black and white, but rather dependent on the type of depth jump being performed. For the most part, track and field athletes, particularly jump athletes, are well served by working on flat-foot landings that minimize ground contact time and replicate foot strike in their event area.

Video 3. This is a good representation of a drop jump.

They can also benefit immensely from the other type of depth jump, the classical version, which I’ll describe. It is characterized by a knee bend that is either at, or slightly less than, an athlete’s typical amount of knee bend in a standing vertical jump. The box heights are also significantly higher in many cases, around 30”-45” (70-110cm). A 45” depth jump takes a very elastic athlete with a lot of plyometric experience, so never forget that box height is based on an athlete’s individual ability.

Finally, whereas the drop jump focuses on minimal ground contact time and quality of muscle stiffness and landing mechanics, the depth jump is more oriented towards maximal rebound height. Therefore it must be paired with an outcome goal, such as a high rebound back up toward a target such as a Vertec or basketball hoop. For track and field athletes, the depth jump can be performed over a high hurdle for much specific effectiveness.

Check out this video depicting a depth jump performed by an Auburn football player for maximal height (hence the use of the contact mat). This is clearly not a drop jump, and is done for maximal explosive power rather than reactive plyometric ability, as seen by the huge knee bend. I recommend that athletes try to use slightly less knee bend than they naturally would in a vertical jump for depth jump performance, to maximize the power impulse. The the less the knee bend in the depth jump, the more it will likely transfer to running jumps and other high-velocity activities.

Video 4. This depth jump performed by a football player represents an extreme example of a strength oriented jump. This player will need to utilize jumps with less knee bend to increase his reactive ability, although this is extremely impressive from a raw power standpoint.

Specific depth jump outcomes and variations

To acquire a more powerful result from a depth jump, outcome goals should be a part of the process. My graduate school research centered on this particular phenomenon in my study, “Kinematic and Kinetic variations among three depth jump conditions in male NCAA Division III college athletes.” I recruited 14 athletes from various sports requiring some level of jumping ability, such as basketball or track and field. I compared the results of three types of 18” (45cm) depth jumps with various outcome goals.

1. A control jump. Drop from the box, land, and rebound as high as possible.
2. A depth jump done over a collapsible hurdle set to the athlete’s individual jumping ability.
3. A depth jump, with a rebound to touching as high as one could on a Vertec measuring device.

I found a few very important points in the implementation of the depth jump exercise:

• The control depth jump was the weakest of the three variants in terms of peak vertical velocity at takeoff. It also tied for the worst (longest) ground contact time with the overhead target.
• The Vertec depth jump was a great way to get an increased peak vertical velocity in the jump. To reach the overhead target, athletes utilized a strategy of increased knee flexion to reach a higher jump height.
• The hurdle depth jump was the most powerful variant, in terms of the reduction of ground contact time (around .1 second, or 25% less contact time than the other two). Surprisingly, it also created the highest peak vertical velocity at takeoff, which I thought the overhead jump would have accomplished. To jump higher with less contact time, subjects created more power in their hips and ankles, which shows that this should be a staple variation for track and field athletes.

The bottom line with designing outcomes for depth jumping is that goals should be fairly specific to the type of sport. Basketball players can perform depth jumps with a basketball in their hands, trying to dunk the ball on a rebound. Volleyball players could perform a depth jump with a lateral drop off the side of the box into a blocking jump. The possibilities are endless and limited only by the creativity of coaches, who simply remember the frame of ground contact and the general muscle recruitment their individual sport tends to demand.

Single-leg depth jumps are another great method of performing the depth or drop jump. Although one would immediately think that single-leg depth jumps would be specific training for single-leg jumps in sport, counter-intuitively they are not. A single-leg depth jump registers a fairly long ground contact time, around a half-second, more similar in nature to a standing vertical jump than a jump off one leg. Strangely enough, when I was performing a large volume of single-leg jumps back in high school, I felt much more power in my two-leg takeoffs than anything.

Common errors in depth jump implementation

According to sport science experts, as well as personal experience, the depth jump may be the most improperly performed exercise in the sporting world today. The rise of barbell sports such as CrossFit has brought a higher standing of barbell competency to the training world, but we are still quite behind in teaching movement skills more specific and transferable to the athletic result! That said, here are common errors in the depth jump exercise.

• Box height is too high for the elastic ability of the athlete.
• Box height is too low to create an optimal, or adequate, overload, this being the case primarily when the athlete is attempting to do a depth jump rather than a drop jump.
• Depth jumps are performed in a state of inadequate physical readiness. This is far and away the biggest crime of inexperienced and unaware coaches. Depth jumps are a powerful overload exercise that requires a high level of CNS readiness. Performing them with poor quality will only lead to further overtraining and bad technical habits.
• Performing depth jumps in excessive volumes. The exact volume will depend on many factors, but athletes should never perform more than 40 in a session. My track and field athletes would never do more than 20, as we would often treat each depth jump as its own individual rep, done with full rest and recovery, and an outcome goal that often increased in difficulty.
• Lack of effort in the depth jump. The exercise is really only useful if it is approached from a maximal mentality. Drop jumps from low heights can still be effective when performed qualitatively and somewhat sub-maximally. They can still improve the efficiency of the muscle-tendon complex, even without a maximal CNS output. This is submaximal approach can be a useful tactic in developmental athletes.
• Depth jumps are often performed with no coaching regarding the quality of the landing. It should be as soft and silent as possible for depth jumps, and on a rigid foot for drop jumps.
• Most coaches never think about the horizontal distance an athlete falls during depth jumps. Often they drop straight down, and then straight back up. But this doesn’t do a great job of replicating jumping in sport, which almost always involves converting some amount of horizontal force to vertical, unless we are just talking proficiency in a standing vertical jump.

Thoughts on depth jumping for various athletic populations

I’ll end with some thoughts on utilizing depth jumps for athletes of specific athletic populations. Clearly the needs of no two are the same, so it makes sense to note some training anecdotes catering to individual populations.

High Jumpers

Since depth jumps were more or less invented to improve the performance of high jumpers, it would make sense that they might play an important role in their development. The best version of the depth jump for high jumpers depends slightly on their takeoff style preference. Other events, such as the long jump, generally require a very short ground contact time at takeoff, around .12 seconds, whereas the high jump can see takeoff times of anywhere from .14 to over .2 seconds in high-level jumpers.

High jumpers are always looking to produce more force in less time, but they shouldn’t only look at the drop jump version of the exercise. Depth jumps are the best possible way to increase total magnitude of force output in the lower body, even if it isn’t truly specific to the exact ground contact time.

Depth jumps are more of a nitrous fuel to the high jumper, and their takeoff shouldn’t be built on a foundation of depth jumps, but rather specific unilateral work. This being said, a nice balance for most high jumpers is 60-70% speed-based drop jumps, and 30-40% depth jumps, performed to an outcome goal of a hurdle or overhead target. For some inspiration, check out this great video of an intense jump from Russian high jumper Rudolf Povaritsyn (PR 2.40m).

Video 5. Perform this depth jump, and perhaps you too can high jump 2.40m.

Long/Triple Jumpers

The same vertical force production that depth jumps offer sprinters is quite useful for horizontal jumpers. Generally speaking, these athletes may do better with a greater respective volume of drop-jump type activities. Ground contact time must be very closely monitored, particularly in seasonal periods when a high level of reactive strength is required. A good volume of low-box-height drop jumps is not as intense as their depth jump brethren, and can be a nice way to help build specific horizontal jump fitness in the SPP training periods.

Sprinters

Are depth jumps necessary to build a world champion sprinter? Of course not. Are they a useful tool in the development of the majority of sprint athletes? Sure. Sprinters do well with depth jumping, as the single-response depth jump can help improve the quality of more common, repetitive vertical plyometric efforts such as hurdle hops. The depth jump is one of the best special strength exercises available for sprinters in terms of improving the magnitude of their ground reaction force, as well as providing a strong neural signal to the lower body. Athletes who need improved acceleration qualities will do better with a higher volume of the depth jump variety, while those seeking improved top-end speed will cater towards variations over hurdles, as well as drop jumps.

Basketball/Volleyball

Sports placing a higher priority on two-leg takeoffs will breed athletes who utilize longer ground contacts to produce power. With that in mind, the quickness of jumping is a critical area of importance for success in these two sports. A basketball player jumping for height may have twice the ground contact time of a track and field long jumper performing the same skill. Properly administered depth jumps can help reverse this trend by allowing these athletes to reduce their ground contact time, thereby getting off the ground quicker.

Care must be taken when administering depth jumps and their derivatives to these athletes. Many of them are already undertaking dozens—if not hundreds—of jumps during each practice session or competition. Remember that a close balance exists between the volume of competitive and special exercises. If the volume is too high, general strength work needs to fill the gap. In many cases, performing drop or depth jumps from lower boxes as more of a skill development/refinement drill can have a better effect on the readiness state of these athletes than pounding on them with intense, outcome-related depth jumps.

Throwers, Football Linemen, and Other Large Athletes

I don’t have much experience using depth jumps with larger athletes who rely on absolute strength more than relative strength. But my recommendation for this population would be simply to avoid higher box heights, and cater towards outcome goal-based efforts. Also, don’t be too harsh on their tendency towards longer ground contact times. Just because a thrower or football player might sport an excellent strength-to-bodyweight ratio, it doesn’t mean that their tendons and ligaments can handle the exponential loading that occurs in a drop from a high box. Short ground-contact times are as much a product of physics and anatomy as they are strong muscles.

Developmental Athletes

Depth jumps should be used with care in the process of developing young athletes. Some youth training experts, such as Mark McLaughlin, the co-founder of Performance Training Center, are known not to use maximal depth jumping as a preparatory exercise for high school athletes, to reduce the effects of early training intensification, and to set them up better for their college sporting years and beyond, something so many coaches are afraid to do or lack the egotistical restraint to consider. Here’s a sample of Mark’s working methods for training youth athletes.

When deciding on depth jumps for young athletes, a general rule is to keep the box height very low (under 18” or 45cm), and to keep them qualitative rather than quantitative. Low box drops and jumps can be a great way to teach loading and reactive mechanics, but the focus should be on the mechanism of the landing and jumping rather than the height of the jump itself. Depth jumps are often the cherry on top of a properly implemented plyometric program, and should never be the first serving for any athlete seeking long-term development.

Conclusion

Like any powerful training stimulus, there is always a duality present. Depth jumps may be the most potent exercise available for those seeking vertical jump and general power improvements, but they must be performed correctly, at the right intensity, at the right time. When done correctly, they can turn average jumpers into great jumpers and great jumpers into champions. When done incorrectly, they’ll provoke injury, over-intensify training, and cause general havoc in the long-term development of an athlete. Knowing how to harness this powerful training tool is the feather in the cap of any coach.

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