Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video 1. Losing a step in the start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Is HRV Measured?

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

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

How Does Training Stress Affect HRV?

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

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

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

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

HRV as a Predictor of Overtraining and Adaptation

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

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

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

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

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

HRV as a Program Design Tool

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Peak Force, Power, and Velocity

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

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

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

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

Sequencing Loads

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

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

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

Peak Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reactive Strength Index

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structural Differences in Athletes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solving Program and Performance Problems

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

The author thanks ForceDecks for the software images shared here.

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

References

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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