Blog

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

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

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

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

Definitions

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

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

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

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

Strength-Speed: Improving Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strength-Speed: Improving Strength

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

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

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

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

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

Waving Between Traits

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

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

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

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

Wave Time Periods

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

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

We can also vary the velocities.

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

Using Velocity to Dictate Loads

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three-Week Wave for College and Professional Athletes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Wave Cycles

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

References

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

 

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

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

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

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

What Causes Chronic Hamstring Soreness and Weakness?

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

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

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

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

The Frustration Begins

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

Management

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

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

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

Joint and Muscle Therapy

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

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

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

Workouts to Enhance Recovery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speed work and Competition

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

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

Conclusion

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

Reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Here are four drills that will help:

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

The 1-Step Drill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schery Tops

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

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

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

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

Video 2. How to perform the Schery tops.

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

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

Cycle Ladder

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

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

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

Video 3. Demonstration of the cycle ladder drill.

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

Cues:

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

Ladji Drill

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

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

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

Video 4. Demonstration of the Ladji drill.

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

The objectives of this article are as follows:

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

The Sport of Wrestling

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

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

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

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

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

The Physiology of a Match

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

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

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

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

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

The Physiological Characteristics of Elite Senior Male and Female Freestyle Wrestlers

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

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

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

Body Composition

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

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

Pulmonary and Cardiac Function

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

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

Muscle Morphology

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

Strength

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

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

²Elite = International level competitor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anaerobic Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speed of Movement

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

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

Flexibility

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

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

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

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

Aerobic Power & Capacity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Statement Re: Characteristics

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

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

The Puzzle — The Interference Effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concurrent Training Research Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Programming Considerations for the Elite Freestyle Wrestler

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

Future Directions

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

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

Final Message

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

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

 

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anatomy of the perfect depth jump

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

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

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

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

Video 1. Depth Jump with Target Object.

Video 2. Depth Jump Over Hurdle.

General guidelines for implementing depth jumps in a program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The important difference of Depth Jump vs. Drop Jump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific depth jump outcomes and variations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Common errors in depth jump implementation

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

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

Thoughts on depth jumping for various athletic populations

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

High Jumpers

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

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

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

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

Long/Triple Jumpers

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

Sprinters

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

Basketball/Volleyball

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

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

Throwers, Football Linemen, and Other Large Athletes

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

Developmental Athletes

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

There are many different treatments and modalities that your therapist may use to help you recover from an injury and get you back to your chosen lifestyle in the quickest and most effective way possible. EMS is one of the modalities that has been popular, but incredibly underutilized, for a long time.

EMS is short for Electrical Muscle Stimulation, and is the process of using external methods to activate your muscles and replicate the messages sent from your brain. While it sounds intimidating, EMS is actually a very simple process.

What Is Electrical Muscle Stimulation?

As you probably already know, your brain controls everything you do, say, think, and feel. This means that when you bend your leg, a message is sent from your brain to the muscle on the top of your leg (quadriceps) telling it to contract. Then a second message is sent to the muscle on the back of your leg (hamstring) telling it to relax.

When you feel pain, a similar thing happens. When you touch something hot, a message carrying that sensation is sent to your brain, telling it that the surface is hot and dangerous. Our brain instantaneously sends the same signals telling the muscles to remove the hand.

All of these messages are sent in under one-thousandth of a second, along tracks known as neural pathways. If you are over 18, you probably remember the old radios where you had to fiddle with a dial to find a radio station because each one had its own frequency. This is exactly how messages in your body work: each type of brain signal has its own frequency. Some of these signals include: pain, sharp, blunt, hot, cold, muscle contraction, and muscle relaxation.

A few years ago, scientists not only discovered these pathways, but they were also able to discover the “frequency” on which we send these messages. Not long after the research was developed further, EMS machines were honed and improved with the ability to use the same neural pathways to send messages to our brain and muscles telling them what to do and how to do it.

“EMS works along the same neural pathways to carry particular messages between the brain and muscles.”

When EMS is used, sticky pads are placed on the muscles that need to be activated (switched on) and the EMS machine is set to the right frequency to mimic the brain messages telling your muscles to contract.

Why Would Your Therapist Use EMS?

There are a number of reasons your therapist might use EMS. These include:

1. Pain Relief – When scientists discovered the frequency that our body uses to send messages telling us about pain, they also discovered that there were similar frequencies that could block those pain messages. Imagine that your pain signals are going along train tracks, and the station manager wants to stop the train. All they would need to do is open a gate across the tracks and that would likely stop the train. This is the case with pain. When you hurt yourself, you may have noticed that you automatically rub the area—that action of rubbing gives the brain different signals and blocks the transmission of the pain frequency. This is not the main use for EMS machines, but is definitely one to be aware of. EMS also provides the added benefit of pain relief for patients who are unwilling or unable to take oral pain relief such as anti-inflammatories.

2. Muscle Memory – It sounds slightly counterintuitive, but these neural pathways and messages we have been talking about create a type of permanent track in our mind. It’s a little bit like the way that scratching a ruler across a wooden table will at some point leave a slight divot. These “divots” are known as our muscle memory. This memory is why David Beckham can, after not kicking a ball for six months, know how to curl the ball into the top corner. His body simply remembers how to do it. The same thing applies to athletes that run fast: Once they have run a new personal best, their body “remembers” how to do it and, therefore, it’s easier to replicate the next time.

If you take this a step further, think about when you learned how to walk and move. You (usually) learned the correct patterns for human movement. These patterns are designed for us to be effective and efficient, and reduce the risk of injury. As we get older, we become lazy and start to develop poor habits, including bad posture. When this happens, some muscles become lazy and aren’t doing the work they should be.

The same thing happens when people develop an injury. For example, when you hurt your knee often, your thigh muscles (quadriceps) will “switch off” as a protective mechanism. The reason for this is that our body interprets pain as danger (usually correctly) and therefore, if moving your knee causes pain, it will try and switch off the muscles controlling your knee so you can do no further damage. Once the acute injury has been resolved, your quadriceps might not “switch back on.” This is the reason that athletes often develop a secondary injury after returning to sport; while the original injury has healed, the muscles are not as strong as they were. EMS is very effective in cases like this. The therapist ascertains which muscles aren’t working and uses the EMS machine to manually “jump start” them. I’ll talk more about how they can do that later.

3. Maximum Muscle Activation – This type of EMS treatment is similar to the one above, but is most commonly used in athletes. When you contract a muscle at any given time—for example, your quadriceps—you may only actually use 40% of the muscle fibers and electrical signals available in your leg. This happens mostly because our bodies are incredibly good at learning how to be effective. So, if using 40% gets the job done, then that is all it will use. The problem with this occurs when you are trying to push your body further than you have before. A weightlifter, for example, may try to lift a weight heavier than they ever have before. As a result, they need to recruit as many of the available muscle fibers and electrical signals as possible. Unfortunately for us all, it is not as simple as just asking your body to do it; your body has to relearn the action and learn to “switch on” the extra fibers, and do so in the correct order.

EMS should never be used as a replacement for training, but as an effective training tool. Share on X

An incredibly effective way to do this is to carry out the movement (in this instance, lifting the barbell) while having the EMS pads attached. The therapist can switch the machine onto the muscle contraction setting and turn it on while the athlete is lifting. After a period of time, this will train those dormant muscle fibers to fire up during that action. The therapist can then gradually reduce the external stimulation, as the muscle will have developed the memory to fire up and complete the action. The huge caveat is that EMS should never be used as a replacement for training but, rather, as a training aid.

When and How Should EMS Be Used?

EMS is best used as an adjunct to your training program; just one tool in your training arsenal. Suggested uses of EMS are:

To Aid Muscle Strengthening When in Pain or Injured

One of the most common situations in which a therapist will use EMS is when an athlete is trying to regain muscle strength, but physical movement or training is prevented by pain and/or acute injury. A common example of this is when a patient has had knee surgery. During the months and years leading up to the surgery, the muscles around the knee will have become increasingly weak either as a result of the muscles “switching off” as a protective mechanism or because the patient initially puts more strain on the other leg to avoid pain. The secondary cause of the muscle weakness is a patient leading a less active lifestyle in order to avoid pain and discomfort.

During the very early stages of rehabilitation (from the initial hours after surgery onward), the therapist aims to reactivate the muscles that have been affected during surgery and begin to trigger the muscle memory. They’ll do this as quickly after surgery as possible.

However, because the patient has been through a fairly traumatic surgery and may be in some discomfort, they may be unable or unwilling to carry out the therapist’s wishes. In this situation, the therapist can use EMS both as a mechanism to relieve the pain and, secondary to that, as a method to activate the muscles without requiring any (or very little) movement from the patient. This can be a useful way for the therapist to help the patient regain confidence in their ability to use the muscles with minimal discomfort.

To Enable Training When Fatigued and Prevent Injury

The most common cause of injury in any exercise program is fatigue, regardless of whether the program is designed to help you return from injury, strengthen to prevent injury, or simply improve a physical skill. When you become tired, a number of significant changes occur that greatly increase your chances of suffering an injury. These changes are:

1. Slower Signal Transmission – The signals we’ve been talking about throughout this article are sent at an incredible speed; however, as we become tired the speed of transmission slows. The cause for concern here is that fatigue prevents our body from having enough time to react in order to prevent injury. An example of this occurs if you are jogging and place your foot on a stone. Your brain will receive the message that your foot is on unstable ground and, as a result, amend your center of gravity and weight distribution and tell your foot to adjust its position, all in a fraction of a second. If, however, you are fatigued and this messaging is delayed, it is increasingly likely that you will not receive those messages in time to make the necessary adjustments prior to rolling your ankle and getting injured.

2. Movement Patterns – As we become tired, perhaps at the end of a training session, our movement patterns change. This is generally done as a mechanism to try and “cheat” the exercise and recruit extra muscles to help out. If you go to the gym and watch people in the weights area you will see this frequently. One of the most obvious examples of this is when people are doing bicep curls. In theory, the only movement in their body during this exercise is the lower arm, which they should bend and extend at the elbow. However, as the person becomes tired, you will see them “hitch”’ their shoulder to try and recruit extra muscles. They may even start to swing at the waist, hoping momentum will get the weight up! This creates cause for concern because these new adaptations are likely to result in an injury.

3. Motor Weakness – Simply put, when they’re fatigued, our muscles are tired. They are simply not capable of carrying out the demands we place on them. You may have experienced this if you have ever been on a long run or had a tough leg-training session and then tried to climb the stairs. Your legs likely felt like jelly and gave way under you. Other than the obvious risks that falling presents, you are at an increased risk of joint and muscle injury during this time because your muscles are overloaded.

Due to the reasons above, you have likely been advised not to complete any training when you’re fatigued. However, thanks to the invention of EMS, this is no longer the case. A therapist can apply EMS at the end of a session and activate the specific muscles, continuing to work on activation and tone while you are lying on a couch, at no risk of injury. This is often used in conjunction with visual rehearsal for maximum benefit.

EMS can even help activate fatigued muscles, without risk to the athlete. Share on X

Overall, EMS is an extremely useful tool to aid a healthy or injured athlete, in conjunction with strategic and proven protocols.

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

New research shows lactate just may be the answer to an exercise-induced energy shortage, especially in the brain.

The idea that this metabolite helps regenerate energy for sustaining exercise has replaced the common misconception of its role in muscle fatigue.

In fact, lactate is a fuel source for many cells, including neurons in the brain, under oxygen-deprived (hypoxic) conditions.

Lactate is Fuel

Lactate helps generate fuel as chemical energy (ATP) which powers every cell in the body. Apparently lactate also operates like a hormone due to its involvement in complex memory formation and neuroprotection.

Astrocytes release lactate in response to neuronal activation. Lactate synthesizes substrates, including acetyl-CoA for the Krebs cycle.

During exercise, ATP is generated mostly from free-flowing blood glucose and the retrieval and breakdown of muscle glycogen stores. To keep moving when the glucose supply is short, the body looks for other ways to regenerate glucose and ATP. With plenty of oxygen, consumption and regeneration flow in a relatively steady state.

A shortage of oxygen, however, causes more lactate production. Pyruvate, a byproduct of glycolysis (glycogen breakdown), can convert to lactate to regenerate the chemical compound NAD+, which is necessary to make ATP.

When produced this way, lactate is typically shuttled to the liver where it’s used to synthesize glucose through gluconeogenesis. Then the glucose is shuttled back to the muscles as a primary energy source in glycolysis.

Fat cells (adipocytes) produce lactate under anaerobic conditions as well. The amount produced depends on a person’s total fat mass.

Lactate and Neuron Metabolism

Researchers are investigating lactate’s ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and play a role in neuron metabolism.

Neuron cell death occurs with oxygen- and glucose-deprivation unless the cell receives lactate before the deprivation occurs. In fact, lactate, not glucose, is the necessary factor in neuron cell recovery from hypoxic conditions.

This process, called the astrocyte-neuron lactate shuttle (ANLS), is particularly active during excitatory neurotransmission and the conversion of neurotransmitters (such as glutamine from glutamate). ANLS both produces and consumes lactate.

Researchers suggest lactate, not glucose, is the primary fuel source for brain neurons. Share on X

Astrocytes are a type of glial cell in the brain which helps keep neurons healthy and function smoothly. Under resting conditions, apparently half of available glucose is used by the neurons and half by the astrocytes. Since astrocytes use only 10-15% of the brain’s total energy, researchers suggest lactate is the primary fuel source for neurons.

Is Lactate the Link to Improving Cognitive Function?

The ANLS pathway also may play a role in memory formation, causing researchers to question whether lactate could be the link between exercise and improved cognitive function.

In the hippocampus, the center of the brain where memories form, exercise induces an overflow of extracellular lactate. The lactate levels stay elevated for at least fifty minutes following exercise.

We need much more research to determine how lactate may correlate to memory formation and neuron plasticity, but these findings are progressive and promising.

Lactate and Physical Fitness

Under strenuous exercise conditions, the highest level of effort the body can physically sustain without accumulating lactate and hydrogen ions (H+) in the blood and muscles is called the lactate threshold.

The higher the lactate threshold, the greater the person’s physical fitness.

The point where lactate begins to accumulate in the blood stream creates the anaerobic threshold. Crossing the anaerobic threshold occurs when the body converts from primarily aerobic to anaerobic metabolism, shifting almost entirely from fat to carbohydrates as the primary fuel source.

Lactate, Muscle Fatigue, and DOMS

In this zone, hydrogen ion production accompanies lactate production. When glucose breaks down from the blood, the process releases two hydrogen ions. If glucose breaks down from muscle glycogen, it produces one ion.

The ions create an acidic environment, known as acidosis, which causes acute muscle fatigue, soreness, and delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) twenty-four to forty-eight hours after exercise. Although lactate is not the direct source of H+ generation, it’s often blamed for muscle fatigue and soreness.

Lactic acid production, however, plays an essential role in chemical buffering to regenerate NAD+ and remove pyruvate from the cell to supply the next cycle of energy production. The blood can take lactic acid from resting or slowly working muscles. This is why muscles appear to recover during the rest periods of interval training occurring at, or above, the lactate threshold.

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

Reference

Proia, P., Di Liegro, C. M., Schiera, G., Fricano, A., and Di Liegro, I. (2016). Lactate as a Metabolite and a Regulator in the Central Nervous System. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 17(9), 1450. doi:10.3390/ijms17091450.

SimpliFaster: Olympic-style lifts are very specific to body types and technique, making them more than just a simple summary of peak or average output. Besides using feedback for motivation and accountability, what can be done to use the data beyond estimating work?

Dan Baker: First, a little preamble to set up this answer. Exercises can be deemed by their biomechanical attributes as either “strength” or “power” oriented. In power exercises, the velocities are high and acceleration continues to the end of the range—the forces do not have to be decelerated. Basically the energy is released into the air through jumps, hops, and throws. Olympic lifts also fall into this category (they are jumping exercises, essentially). If the force is safely dampened at the end of the movement, like hitting a heavy bag, then throwing punches and kicking are also power exercises.

Figures 1a, 1b, and 2 show sets of snatch push presses (power exercise, Olympic lift) and heavy squats (a strength exercise). Despite the same sort of % 1RM (sets working from about 70 to 80% 1RM), the mean velocities are much different. For the snatch push press, the velocities are around .8 to over 1 m/s. For the heavy squats, .3 to .5 m/s. For the snatch push presses, the velocities remain fairly stable, despite the increase in resistance for each set. For the squat there is a decrease in velocity with increased resistance.

Strength exercises have a deceleration phase at the end of range when resistances are low (< 50% 1RM)= to avoid stressing the tendons and joints. On major strength exercises like squats, bench presses, and deadlifts, with resistances below 50% 1RM, more than half the ROM is spent in deceleration, making them less than ideal for power training even though at this low level of resistance the velocity may be high. The length of the deceleration phase decreases as resistances go above 65% 1RM. By 85-90%, there is no real deceleration phase, but the velocities are so low at this level of resistance that they cannot be classified as power exercises. So using light resistances below 50% 1RM in traditional strength exercises to develop power is often counterproductive as it is training the body to decelerate for much of the ROM, rather than continuing to accelerate.

So we do strength exercises with heavy resistances to develop force/strength, and power exercises with the appropriate resistance to train the body to use force with high velocity until the end of range. If you want to use “strength exercises” to develop power, you need to use resistances of 50-70% 1RM. Something to dampen the ferocity of a rapid lockout (such as bands and chains) also helps.

In addition, there are two measures of velocity and power—the mean or average of the entire range of (concentric) movement, and the peak, which represents the highest velocity in the shortest measuring time (say 5 millisecs). So there will be a difference between the two measures. When someone is doing a lot of end-range deceleration (because they may be trying to lift 30-40% 1RM in a bench press explosively), there will be a marked difference between the two figures as the body has to severely decelerate the lock-out to protect the joints. In Olympic lifts, which are virtually full ROM power exercises, there should not be a huge difference. If there is a more marked difference for one athlete compared to others, it suggests that they are decelerating near the end of ROM.

Why would they? Because they have mobility or technique problems and the body inherently knows not to continue accelerating (or at least, lifting with high velocity) until catch or lock-out. It may be dangerous to the involved joints, tendons, etc. So there may be a high peak velocity, but the body will slow down the speed to avoid dealing with high force and high velocity at a vulnerable end of ROM in athletes with mobility/injury concerns.

This may suggest that you don’t perform the full versions of the Olympic lifts (or power versions) with athletes who have mobility problems. You may be better off performing a variation (for example, clean power shrug jump instead of power/hang clean).

Also, Prue Cormie’s research shows that the benefit with, for example, power cleans is that as resistance goes up, power also goes up because the velocity is fairly stable—you need a certain velocity to make a successful lift. In other exercises, as resistance goes up, at some point the % dropoff in velocity is greater than the % increase in resistance. Therefore, power goes down.

More than 20 years ago, Greg Wilson called this point—where mean power is highest—the “optimal power load.” It is different for every exercise and there is also individual variation. Some of my published research looks at bench press throws in a Smith machine by professional rugby league players. That “optimal power” (mean power of the entire concentric range) was 55% 1RM for weaker blokes (about 125 kg 1RM), 50% 1RM for the across- the-board normal blokes (about 140 kg 1RM), and 45% 1RM for the strongest blokes (about 150 kg+ 1RM).

To summarize:

1. Olympic lifts are great because we know that if resistance goes up, so does power, until about 90+% 1RM. You don’t need a measurement device unless you are doing pulls or push presses.
2. With the Olympic lifts, the “optimal power” goes up in resistance as you get stronger but stays fairly stable in % 1RM.
3. For strength exercises, the optimal power may go down in % 1RM, even if the actual resistance has gone up a little, if the athlete has gained a lot of strength.
4. For strength exercises, that optimal power point may need to be determined if it is relevant for the individual and the sport. To determine this “optimal power” point or resistance, you need measurement modalities—either a linear position transducer or the new accelerometer type like the PUSH armband.
5. A marked disparity between peak and mean power in an Olympic lift suggests a mobility/technique problem.
6. A marked disparity between peak and mean power in a strength exercise with light resistances (< 50% 1RM) is due to the body self-protecting the joints and tendons from a forceful lockout. Why bother to do this?
7. For a strength exercise to develop power, use 50-70% 1RM for explosive power, perhaps with bands and chains added, or keep these exercises solely for strength development with appropriately heavier resistances.
8. Use jump squats, bench press throws, and similar exercises to train power with resistances 50%1RM of the strength exercise.

SimpliFaster: Jump testing sensitivity is not perfect from the sensitivity being limited, but more reactive options that utilize the stretch shortening cycle add more validity. Is jump training worth doing regularly, a waste of time, or perhaps valuable enough to explore?

Dan Baker: It depends on the athlete and sport. For jump athletes, yes—jump testing and training are important! But the type of jump testing and training needs to be determined. For example, when I worked with Olympic divers, we did squat jumps (no countermovement or arm swing), countermovement jumps (no arm swing), and a vertical jump with arm swing that mimicked a dive take-off (BVJ). The SJ and CMJ are just diagnostic tools to improve the most important, sport-relevant jump test, the BVJ. The SJ is thought to represent the contractile capabilities of the muscles. The difference between the SJ and the CMJ is the extent to which the stretch-shortening cycle contributes.

So, if there is very little difference between the two (say <10%), then the athlete needs more SSC-type training such as jumps, plyos, etc. If the difference is large (>20%), then they may need more basic strength work (squats, etc). This ratio will also reflect the recent training content. So if we concentrate on heavy squats and heavy jump squats for a month or two, the SJ may go from, say, 40 cm to 42 and the CMJ from 46 cm to 47 cm—the SSC augmentation decreases from 15% to 12%. But in following up that block with lighter, faster jumps, depth jumps and other plyos, the SJ may remain unchanged. But the CMJ may improve up to 50 cm and now the augmentation is 19%.

We also did loaded jump squats, up to 80 kg. This is pure leg-jumping power and another tool to improve BVJ. If you look at my paper on the training of an Olympic diver from 1993 to 1996, published in the NSCA Journal in 2001, you will see that a 50% increase in squat strength (coming off a low strength level) begets a 25% increase in power in loaded jump squats, which in turn begets a 15% increase in BVJ height.

So jumps can be used diagnostically to develop training strategies or as tools to achieve outcomes, especially for “jump sport” athletes (volleyball, basketball, diving, gymnastics, etc).

For other sports, jumping is associated with things important in the sport and again can be used diagnostically or as a training tool to achieve an outcome. For example, my research on professional rugby league players, with whom I worked for 19 years, shows that the power achieved jumping with 80-100 kg really differentiates those at the pro team level (NRL) from second- and third-division players. Basically the average weight of players is 98 kg, so if you can’t move that weight quickly in a triple-extension movement in the gym (jump squat or hang clean), you aren’t going to move it quickly on the field! To move those sorts of weights with velocity, they needed to be about 60% 1RM squat. Therefore, you needed a 1RM squat of >170 kg (much more for the bigger boys, whose opponents weigh about 110+kg!). So testing and training influence each other.

Jump squats with 20 kg did not differ much between teams in professional rugby leagues. But at the end of every power training session warm-up, before the real barbell work started, we would do five jump squats with 20 kg to monitor the state of the neuromuscular system/recovery. An easy test, not fatiguing, and it allowed us to monitor how the squad was coping. A 3-4% deviation (from the best preseason score) meant nothing. That is just the normal weekly variation, but changes of 7-10+% meant something! If the whole squad is down on average 7%, look out!

See Figure 3 below for changes across an 8-month rugby league season. There is a slump during the middle portion, which corresponds to two key factors: mid-winter and an increase in playing volume and intensity for key players. So we are dealing with the twin stressors of a suppressed immune system and harder games to recover from, and our N-M scores decrease for the whole squad accordingly.

So we can look at jump training/testing for diagnostics or for training to achieve outcomes associated with success in the sport.

SimpliFaster: Submaximal loads are great for estimating repetition maximal abilities, and research is showing evidence that general exercises and lift velocity can predict what one can do if the load is heavier. One worry coaches have is that submaximal loads with maximal effort for velocity is fatiguing. What is the best way to implement one-repetition estimation with submaximal loads?

Dan Baker: For me, it is still a reps-to-fatigue (RTF) test, with either 5RM or 3RM to predict 1RM. My correlations to predict 1RM are very high with these (R= 0.93-.97). There is not enough data with velocity-based estimation yet for it to be considered better than RTF testing, but it looks promising. We just need more studies, across different populations of athletes and sports, on different exercises. Certainly, for the lower body this would be great—to hit a full squat of somewhere 60-80% 1RM for 1-3 reps and extrapolate to 1RM with a degree of certainty, especially in-season! But right now, most of the evidence on this is done with a Smith machine on Spanish phys ed students, soccer players, or water polo players! We need more data, male and female, on more athletes from more sports and free weights! We need more research that includes super-stars and explosive athletes.

“One worry coaches have is that submaximal loads with maximal effort for velocity is fatiguing” – WTF! Someone fatigued by doing 1 to 3 reps at 70% 1RM with maximal velocity is no athlete!

SimpliFaster: Most holistic programs in the weight room and on the field use different strength training modalities, not just one type of lift. Besides alternating intensities and volumes, does bar velocity-type tracking help with better adaptations biologically to the body? Many coaches are looking into hormonal and gene activation as part of the training process. Is this a wrong path or a good idea?

Dan Baker: My research from the past 20+ years shows that I have always measured power output during jump squats and bench press throws (in a Smith machine). These are my basic power exercises and tests. I prefer to track performance measures (strength, velocity, power, MAS, etc.), not physiological measures (hormone levels, gene activation, etc.). No gold medals for best mTOR signal or fiber type or testosterone-to-cortisol ratio in the Olympics. Don’t get lost by chasing sports science measures when there are easy performance measures to track (says the sports scientist!)

SimpliFaster: Following up on genes and hormones, muscle-fiber profiles of athletes are gaining interest. Could coaches do a better job or individualizing training based on one genetic trait—specifically the amount of fast and slow fiber distribution?

Dan Baker: We are not allowed under the WADA code to manipulate hormones (their changing levels are a consequence of what we do, but we cannot expressly attempt to manipulate them) or genes. Do people understand the WADA code? Manipulating hormones or genes is a doping offense under WADA and you face a 4-year or lifetime ban. We are not allowed to change our genes, so why bother with this stuff? Apart from the peak Olympic sports of sprints, jumps, throws and lifting, most sports require a mix of attributes.

If we take rugby-type sports which need various physical attributes, a lot of blokes are fast-twitch fiber types. But they get beaten down by their opponents through the cumulative fatigue of the high workload imposed on them. Same with many MMA fighters, who get gassed late in the bout and lose. So catering to their strength (explosiveness) is not going to help their weakness (less aerobic capacity). Mixed sport athletes need to work on many things. But can we do a better job on the explosive outliers? Of course! We just need the extra manpower resources!

However, if we take jumpers, divers, sprinters, Olympic lifters, throwers, and others like them, all their training is catered to the fact that they are explosive power athletes. They are on small teams, so manpower aspects of coaching are not as critical as field sports with larger teams. What more could you do that you are not already doing with them? You know they are fast-twitch fiber type people! And you program more individually.

Look at Figure 3. This is the mean bench press velocity lifting for 95 kg (63% 1RM) for three professional rugby league players from the back-line positions—the fast runners, the Ferraris and Lamborghinis. They are lifting at high .8 to over .9m/s for six reps for 2 sets. Yet the González-Badillo et al IJSM 2010 paper suggests that at 63% 1RM, the mean velocity should be < .8 m/s. So why do we have > .9 m/s, when the research suggests maybe .77 m/s for this level of intensity? Because these are our outliers, our superstars. They can’t handle the same volume of work and they are not good at grinding reps because they burn brighter, not longer.

One of those players from Figure 3, doing 3×8 on the bench with a RPE of 8, can only use 64% 1RM. Whereas another player (not depicted),a real slow-twitch type, a grinder, does 3×8 with 78% 1RM. They both bench press 155kg for their 1RM (but have different body weights). We take that into account when designing training.

SimpliFaster: The final need of coaches is to make training work better in reducing injuries, improving speed and size of players, and transferring to sporting actions like deceleration and jumping. How does Velocity Based Training do this with athletes?

Dan Baker: I don’t propose all training be VBT. Why would I? Velocity is another metric to monitor, not the be-all and end-all. Training needs to be holistic, not just based upon velocity. Certainly, the focus on velocity, rather than just 1RM levels, appears to have found its way into the US training mainstream. It will help improve performance, reduce injury, and so forth, as we gain more data and make more informed training decisions. The low cost of velocity measuring devices will see their proliferation. The Plyometric Power System, developed in the early 1990s by Greg Wilson and Rob Newton to measure velocity and power, cost my team $18,000 in 1996! Now the PUSH armband is only a few hundred dollars.

There are certain key exercises and power output or velocity metrics that are useful for sports. You just need to determine what they are! As I mentioned, we have seen that power output or velocity during jump squats with 100 kg and bench press throws of >60 kg separates the pros from 2nd and 3rd division rugby league players, but velocity and power generated with 20 kg in the same exercises does not.

So I need to make sure the velocity I am measuring is one actually associated with performance. If two rugby league players generated .8 m/s with the same % 1RM, are they the same? Not if one is 40 kg stronger than the other, because his power output would be much higher. Look at Figure 4. The greater the amount of resistance, the greater the difference between U/20 years and professional rugby league players. If we just measure velocity with 20 kg during a bench press throw, there is only 2% difference, but it is 16 % with 60 kg, and with 3RM bench press more than 18%.

For divers, the velocity or power generated during jump squats with 20 kg, however, is associated with performance levels. So different sports have different relevant performance measures—jump squats with 20 kg is performance-relevant for divers but not for pro rugby league players who need 80-100 kg! S&C coaches will need to determine what measures relate to success in their sports.

So do some testing. What separates the best performers from lower level performers? Use a battery of loads, initially, until you find what loads and velocities are important (power is the product of load and velocity). And I use absolute loads for testing, not % 1RM. So jumps with 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 kg or whatever is most appropriate for the athletes.

For in-season recovery monitoring, we see (Figure 5) that jump squats with 20 kg can give a guide of recovery and adaptation, especially during the in-season for football and rugby players (Australian Football League, National Rugby League, Rugby Union). So we can use this as a measure of recovery monitoring, not performance.

With respect to injury and rehab, we can look at the velocity of, for example, squats and RDLs with sub-maximal loads in injured players to gain insight of where they are at in their recovery (compared to their normative data in the same exercises).

There are two major things that inhibit us—forces and speeds, especially at end-ROM. After an injury, we have to gradually and progressively break down the neural inhibitions to these things. Maybe someone has good strength (force) in an isometric test at mid-ROM, but can they safely express that high force at high velocities through full ROM? Also is there a large disparity between peak and average velocity?

This is where the proliferation of velocity measuring devices will come in handy. The future is exciting in this area with low-cost, accurate measurement devices gaining widespread acceptance. Many more smart coaches will now be able to make better training decisions because they will have velocity and power data to help inform them about the adaptation processes the athlete is experiencing. I have been using various measurement velocity devices for over 20 years now and I am super-excited about the future.

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: Olympic-style lifts are very specific to body types and technique, making them more than just a simple summary of peak or average output. Besides using feedback for motivation and accountability, what else can be done to use the data beyond estimating work?

Mike Tuchsherer: The two big things to me would be bar path tracking and then managing parameters for assistance work. And to be honest, although a device like the GymAware can track bar path and should be put in the “useful” category, I’m not sure it’s the best tool available for tracking such things. A more useful aspect would be to manage the load for something like pulls. It’s easy to go too light or too heavy when doing, say, snatch pulls at various heights. If you have a way to measure bar speed in real time, then you can auto-regulate the intensity—which is very useful.

SimpliFaster: Jump testing sensitivity is not perfect from the sensitivity being limited, but more reactive options that utilize the stretch shortening cycle add more validity. Is jump training worth doing regularly, a waste of time, or perhaps valuable enough to explore?

Mike Tuchsherer: Worth doing for whom? As my area of expertise is squarely in the realm of powerlifting and to a much lesser extent other iron sports, I have to answer from that perspective. For powerlifters, I don’t think jump training is worth doing regularly. It’s just too far removed from the specific skills and abilities required for being a good powerlifter.

SimpliFaster: Submaximal loads are great for estimating repetition maximal abilities, and research is showing evidence that general exercises and lift velocity can predict what one can do if the load is heavier. One worry coaches have is that submaximal loads with maximal effort for velocity is fatiguing. What is the best way to implement one-repetition estimation with submaximal loads?

Mike Tuchsherer: The closer you get to handling a 1RM, the more accurate the estimation will be. Doing a 3RM will yield a more accurate prediction than a 5RM, and so on. The same holds true for the “sub-maximal-ness” of the effort too. A very tough set (high RPE) will be more accurate than a very easy set (low RPE). So it’s really a trade-off with how accurate you need to be. In my experience, the best implementation has been to simply conduct normal training and use that to form the estimations. We go into this knowing that a) heavier work will be more accurate than lighter work, and b) the athlete must be accelerating the weight maximally to get an accurate reading. So the further off these variables are in real life, the less emphasis we can put on the reading.

SimpliFaster: Most holistic programs in the weight room and on the field use different strength training modalities, not just one type of lift. Besides alternating intensities and volumes, does bar velocity-type tracking help with better adaptations biologically to the body? Many coaches are looking into hormonal and gene activation as part of the training process. Is this a wrong path or a good idea?

Mike Tuchsherer: I think it’s probably a rock worth turning over. We need a certain level of variety in an athlete’s training in order to continue improving results. But we pretty quickly hit a point of diminishing returns. So it would be interesting to know more about it. Keep in mind, though, that variation in intensity will also result in some variation in velocity in most practical cases. The first few reps of your 10RM set will be faster than any of the reps of your 3RM set. So there is some “built-in” variation when it comes to bar speed in normal programming unless you’re always tightly controlling the tempo.

SimpliFaster: Following up on genes and hormones, muscle-fiber profiles of athletes are gaining interest. Could coaches do a better job of individualizing training based on one genetic trait—specifically the amount of fast and slow fiber distribution?

Mike Tuchsherer: In the context of powerlifting, I’m not sure how much that would matter. It may get us to an individualized answer a bit faster, but how much real impact does that have on the athlete? How important is that level of individualization? I’m not sure. Based on what I’ve seen so far, training differences as a result of personality vary much more than training differences as a result of fiber-type distribution. In the practical setting, however, I’m only assessing the latter by proxy so there are certainly limitations with my observation.

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

 

 

Recently there was an informal discussion on Facebook about VBT (Velocity Based Training). Carl Valle asked several of the participants in that discussion if they would formally respond to a series of questions related to VBT. Here are the answers from Dr. Bryan Mann. The answers from the other participants will be posted when they are made available. You may submit questions to Dr. Mann in the comments section below.

SimpliFaster: Olympic-style lifts are very specific to body types and technique, making them more than just a simple summary of peak or average output. Besides using feedback for motivation and accountability, what else can be done to use the data beyond estimating work?

Bryan Mann: Well, for one, the bar path can be tracked with the GymAware. For those who are big in Olympic lifts, it is good to see what happened and where it happened. From a longitudinal standpoint, I don’t think that is it. A quick turnover of force is one of the main reasons (besides speed-strength development) why Olympic lifts are great for sports. With certain devices, you have the ability to measure the descent of the bar as well as the speed of the descent. I will say that this really only matters for Olympic lifts done from the hang, and this is the only type of Olympic lift that most teams do consistently here at Mizzou.

We have had great successes with it. Engaging the stretch/shortening cycle requires fast and violent movements. Some devices let you see the length of time for the eccentric, the dip that occurs, and the speed that it occurs at. If fast and violent is what you are wanting, are you getting it? I don’t think this is something that you use as feedback necessarily (unless it’s just as a teaching tool for a day or two). It is more of a way for coaches to evaluate their athletes. If the eccentric portion of the initial movement is looking good, and their concentric is looking good, the transfer will be higher. Sometimes we get too caught up on the concentric portion. We must realize that there are two portions to this movement.

It reminds me of vertical jumping. Ben Peterson said that vertical jumping is a skill, and he is right. People learn how to jump higher because that is what we as practitioners care about. The athletes will rely on their strengths to give you the best number. Those who are more strength-dominant and don’t really have that neural “twitch” will go for longer slow dips to allow the longer acceleration time to reach a higher speed of the center of mass upon takeoff. Others who are more “twitchy” go for a rapid shallow descent and rely on neurophysiological mechanisms like the stretch reflex to develop more power.

I think it is much the same on the clean. One athlete may go with a long slow eccentric to hit the concentric velocities and move greater loads. Another athlete may have much shallower, rapid descent, yet moves with the same velocity and the same load. Which one is right? If we look at the force signatures that Cal Dietz published in Triphasic Training, we would say that you want the second athlete’s signature. The ability to quickly absorb and reproduce force may in fact lead to the quicker changes of direction necessary in team sports. I will say, though, this is something I have just started looking at. So I can’t really say, “You should be looking at this dip, for this time, at this velocity.” I do think that this is something valuable to evaluate your program. In the future will we have enough data to say something definitively? I think so. I’m just not sure right now.

SimpliFaster: Jump testing sensitivity is not perfect from the sensitivity being limited, but more reactive options that utilize the stretch shortening cycle add more validity. Is jump training worth doing regularly, a waste of time, or perhaps valuable enough to explore?

Bryan Mann: If we are talking about monitoring training loads, it’s good to explore. Recent research tells us that tracking peak velocity is going to be king. It is far more sensitive than jump height or flight time, and does a better job of picking up differences than force or power.

There are several other things that would be good to monitor if we are looking at countermovement jumps, depth jumps, or anything of that nature. For depth jumps, there is of course ground contact time to factor in as well, and I think that is a crucial measure. For the jump height, it is so multifactorial. When doing more than one repetition (which I believe you should), if the athletes are given feedback, they will change their technique to get the highest possible jump. They may increase their descent distance to increase the time spent in acceleration before takeoff. Having other things to monitor such as dip and eccentric velocity allows you to delve even more deeply into the jump and get more information.

I’m all for parsimony. Let’s get the most amount of information from the least amount of testing. While the vertical jump used to be the gold standard for monitoring, it really isn’t any longer as it isn’t sensitive enough. Many things can confound the results. Using technology, we can look at multiple factors that go into the jump. These different factors—such as flight time, dip, eccentric velocity, concentric velocity, and height—provide nuggets of valuable info. Is one piece of information more critical than the others? Well, some people say peak concentric velocity is the best predictor, but maybe it’s only because no one has found the Holy Grail yet?

A podcast with Carl Valle—who is also on this roundtable—mentioned using 40kg as the load for the jumps. You are getting weekly longitudinal data and a small training effect. Squat jumps are ballistic in nature and thus have a very minor deceleration phase—if one exists at all. But what’s wrong with getting some ballistics in every week? Nothing. It is going to help improve the athlete’s RFD.

Whatever type of jump you do (countermovement or non-countermovement), be consistent. Do it on the same day or same phase of the week. For instance, if a baseball player on a 5-day rotation always lifts 2 days after pitching, always do it on that day (instead of a typical 7-day rotation). That way you can tell when/if something is changing/happening. This is crucial to help determine what/when changes occur.

This is something else that I have just started playing with in the past couple of weeks so I can’t give any definitive info. I feel bad saying this over and over, but I’m just really delving into GymAware and all of its capabilities. We (okay, I) have been using the concentric everything as a gold standard for so long, but I have noticed a lot of unaccounted-for variance in things. I think a lot of this can be covered with things like eccentrics. I reserve the right to be wrong on this, but what I’m looking at right now seems promising.

SimpliFaster: Submaximal loads are great for estimating repetition maximal abilities, and research is showing evidence that general exercises and lift velocity can predict what one can do if the load is heavier. One worry coaches have is that submaximal loads with maximal effort for velocity is fatiguing. What is the best way to implement one-repetition estimation with submaximal loads?

Bryan Mann: This one is purely theoretical for me. I think Mladen has done more with this question, so I’d read his answer. If you don’t have time I’ll give something that’s theoretical from my standpoint. If I remember correctly, at over 60% of 1RM the mean propulsive velocity and mean velocity become closer and closer. If you hit the first set or two at 60% plus at max velocity, you could predict the 1RM for the day. Utilizing that 1RM, you could choose loads based on that and do them at an entirely volitional velocity. For instance, if my first set at 60% showed that today my max was at 135kg instead of 125kg, then I could use that 135kg to base the rest of my sets for whatever % of 1RM I had intended for that day and perform the exercises using volitional rather than maximal intended velocity.

On the other hand, I’m not sure why coaches are worried about velocity being fatiguing. ALL training is fatiguing. If the goal is just simply maintenance of strength, okay. However, I am most concerned with performance. All of my volumes are done in a manner which will keep performance high and total volume relatively low. I am not concerned about the velocity being fatiguing, because I’m looking at like 10 total reps of squats, etc. My in-season training is all based on strength-speed or speed-strength utilizing high velocities. This is what is most important for most team sports in-season. During the off-season, isn’t stressing the athlete and causing the adaptation the point? If we want to cause an adaptation to occur, we have to impose an overload of a specific demand upon the body.

SimpliFaster: Most holistic programs in the weight room and on the field use different strength training modalities, not just one type of lift. Besides alternating intensities and volumes, does bar velocity-type tracking help with better adaptations biologically to the body? Many coaches are looking into hormonal and gene activation as part of the training process. Is this a wrong path or a good idea?

Bryan Mann: I truly believe it is, and it goes back to specificity. I know people disagree with me on this right now, but I’m not sure why other than the fact that it’s new. If you asked what % of 1RM should you be training at to develop strength-speed, people would tell you around 50-65% or maybe even 70%. But if you tell them a velocity range they look at you like you’re crazy.

We all know that strength is extremely variable, as was alluded to before. Mladen in his paper showed what he later let me know was his own training and its variations. He saw an 18% swing on any given day, so some days the %s would be way off and others he would be lucky and be right on. We know that velocity and % of 1RM are so consistent. Something like 98% of the population when utilizing maximal intended velocity is within ±.04m/s for each of the %s (I think some of this variation is by height. This is something I’m looking in to for the future. I think we may find some interesting stuff, such as when you’re dealing with major height variations, some things may change). So if we use the corresponding velocity to the % of 1RM, we will be using the right weight on any given day.

I go through all of this to relate everything back to the SAID principle. We have to impose the proper demand on the body to get the specific adaptation we are hoping for. If we know we want to develop strength speed, we are looking at .75-1.0m/s (40-65ish% of 1RM); for accelerative strength .5-.75m/s (around 65 to 80ish% 1RM); for absolute strength, under .5m/s (85-100%). Simply using velocities that correspond to the % of 1RM desired allows you to be right on the load you are utilizing, rather than hoping to be lucky that it was correct on any given day.

I think it’s a good idea to use hormonal and gene activation as part of the training process. We can take evidence and research that has already been done and try and figure out how to manipulate it for the best results. I think any changes that come as a part of training would be great, but I am not so sure about any gene activation done through exogenous substances.

However, how many coaches are going to be looking at actual changes in DNA? How many strength and conditioning coaches have the money to be doing western blots and the like to be examining DNA? Also—does it actually matter? I think it is great to examine what the actual outcomes of training are, and what things are influenced. What really does happen to mTOR during times of low, moderate, and high aerobic activity? What really does happen on the cellular level to signal greater hormonal responses? How do we alter these signaling pathways?

While these are great things to know and understand, I don’t see coaches looking to do genetic testing on their athletes. It’s cost-prohibitive. We know about C-reactive protein, test:cortisol ratios, VO2 Max testing from Bruce protocols, Wingates for power, etc., and most people don’t utilize them because of time and cost. Do we take what we know from science and apply it to training? ABSOLUTELY! But I don’t think it’s necessarily the best utilization of resources to spend money on genetic testing. I think results could be better seen with cheaper means. Are they running faster and jumping higher and changing direction more quickly? If they are, I think this is what really matters.

SimpliFaster: Following up on genes and hormones, muscle-fiber profiles of athletes are gaining interest. Could coaches do a better job of individualizing training based on one genetic trait—specifically the amount of fast and slow fiber distribution?

Bryan Mann: Interesting that you pose this question. I think that to some point, yes we could. Recently we examined all our football players and some different things that make them who and what they are. One thing that has long been talked about is somatotype through the Heath Carter equation (I’ve got a poster presentation on this at the NSCA National Conference for anyone who is interested). We found that—except for ectomorphs—the athletes did not respond to training any differently. They responded best to decreased volumes, especially at higher intensities.

This is not to say that differences among other sports don’t exist, as this was very much a homogenous group. While the positions vary in their makeup, all rely on strength and power for optimal performance. It would be interesting to see the results from a more heterogeneous group such as an entire track team. How do individuals respond to training, such as long distance vs. throwers? I’m going to guess it would be different, but can’t say for sure.

I really feel like this individualization of training is like the Wild West. There is so much going on and so many buzzwords associated with it, but does it make much of a difference? Well, for 85% of our team it really didn’t make a difference with how they responded, but for 15% it did. Is that sampling error and population bias? Perhaps. Might it be different for the general population? To me, the frustrating and invigorating parts of this profession are the unknowns, solving those and then finding out what else we don’t know. It’s a never-ending cycle, and the great thing is that you never know what you’re going to run into next.

I think that fiber typing could play a critical role in training. I’ve noticed over the years that the guys who are your Ferraris—with the highest type-2 fiber makeup—seem to benefit most from small volumes of high-intensity, high-velocity work. They need longer and/or more frequent rests. If they don’t get them, they start to break down.

These are the guys who are often the freaks you work with only a handful of times in your career. In the 16 years I’ve been in this field, I have come across maybe a dozen. They are the stuff that legends are made of with their athletic abilities. But not every guy who jumps 40 inches is a Ferarri, I might add.

At the opposite end are the Diesel Duallys, the guys who are high type-1 fiber (or at least I’d assume they are). They just get better with every attempt, and it seems like they don’t start to even get warmed up until the 3rd or 4th quarter. We had an athlete who didn’t start improving his 40 time until about his 6th or 7th attempt, and not PR until his 10th. With 40s, I’ve always maintained that when they drop below 97% of their best run of the day, they are done. For most of our athletes, that was 2-4 repetitions.

But this guy would run a 40, do a jump test, then an agility test, and come back to run another 40 and keep going for over an hour. Then he’d do his best performances. Now, don’t go saying that “Well, obviously he wasn’t warmed up yet.” I have never been one who trained individual athletes, and this guy did everything and he did it right. We didn’t have to watch for him skipping out on stuff like warmup exercises and what have you. He just took a long time to warm up.

I’ve recently been reading Winning, a book by Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE. A former CEO recommended it to me for leadership and how to run a department. (By the way, if you want to know how to lead and provide direction, I’d say CEOs of multimillion-dollar corporations would be a good start). Welch talks about the typical breakdown of employees. You have your top 20% who are your stars, your middle 70% who are your workhorses, and your lowest 10% who are just your bottom feeders.

Most people would think that you need to spend the majority of your time on your stars, to make sure they shine. Well, that’s really not the case. You need to spend a great amount of time on your middle 70% and provide them with all of the resources you can and keep them moving in the right direction. This is where your future stars will come from, and presently are the source of most of your profits.

I think the same principles apply to training large teams (football, swimming, etc.). You spend most of your time determining the best training for the middle 70%, then use whatever time is left over trying to make sure your stars and Ferraris get what they need. If you have either a small team or a large coaching staff, allow one or two of the staff do what’s best for the Ferraris.

One of the great things about VBT is you’ll also quickly be able to tell who your Ferraris are and make sure that they’re using the right loads. We had one football player who was really in the wrong sport. He was extremely fast and explosive, and would have done a helluva a job in the indoor 60 and the outdoor 100. When we first started utilizing VBT with him, he was able to move much higher velocities at the intended loads, and did well with heavier loads at the appropriate velocities when we backed down the volume. VBT allowed us to have the red flag to catch that Ferrari who we might not have noticed until much later. Regardless though, from day 1 he was using the right load for himself.

Now, back to the question as I got off track—could coaches do a better job of individualization? Most likely yes, though I do think that first off they need to get that middle 70% correct before they worry about spending time doing individualization. If they don’t, they’ll be looking for another job very quickly.

SimpliFaster: The final need of coaches is to make training work better in reducing injuries, improving speed and size of players, and transferring to sporting actions like deceleration and jumping. How does Velocity Based Training do this with athletes?

Bryan Mann: I think autoregulation and specificity address all of these points. I will point out that first the athlete should get strong. This takes care of all of those points. Research on Division 1 football players by Jacobson (and I believe Krause was the other researcher) showed that increasing strength improved speed, explosive ability, and change of direction for about the first year. After that, increasing strength did not increase those qualities. At the point when power and speed are no longer improved by getting stronger, we need to look to increase RFD or other things.

I’m currently working on utilizing our longitudinal data to examine the effects of utilizing velocity on improvement of power, speed, and agility over the course of a career as compared to a long-term program that did not use this implementation. I feel that I often say “I’m working on something for this” all of the time. Maybe I could get something done if it weren’t for this pesky teaching and coaching I’ve got to do on top of the stuff that I WANT to do.

Using VBT can help with the speed and other sporting actions to increase the quality of work by giving feedback. A study by Randell et al showed that by giving feedback of the velocity of the lifts (with all loads and volumes the same) to one group resulted in significant improvements in speed, jumping ability, and change of direction over a second group that did everything else the same but received no feedback. I also think that combined with the feedback, the specificity of load with maximal intent helps with the improvements. When you know the trait that needs to be developed, having nearly every rep of every set at the appropriate load with maximal intent seems to bring about great changes in the athlete in terms of the transfer to performance.

As far as reducing injuries, using VBT helps adjust the load in congruence with the other stressors on an athlete. I’m sure most of us have read Selye’s The Stress of Life or Sapulsky’s Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers, and we have seen that stress in one area of life affects the body in the same manner, albeit not with same intensity.

When I was working at a smaller school, we had a fantastic off-season program. Guys were just throwing up their loads like they were nothing. One of the last sessions got us really excited about testing. Our football guys were across the board just smoking their sets with 92% for doubles. We were scheduled to test shortly after, and we happened to do it during midterm exams. We had several guys getting stapled with 85%, and most only getting their 92% for their max.

What happened? The accumulation of stress affected them physically through what is called psychoneuroimmunology (say that 3 times fast!). I’m not going to lie and tell you that I knew what had happened right off of the bat—I didn’t know for about 10 years. I just knew what happened and it was so drastic that it stuck in my mind. I finally figured it out in 2012 after talking with health psychologist Dr. Brick Johnstone. When I talked about it as well as the injury rash during the previous year, he mentioned, “Oh, you’re talking about psychoneuroimmunology. This is what it is, how it happens, etc.”

We did statistical analysis and found that we had basically three types of weeks: high-stress weeks (pre-season camp), high academic-stress weeks (a lot of tests), and low academic-stress weeks (no major tests). What was interesting was that during the pre-season, the guys in the two deep were something like 2.8 times more likely to get hurt as during a low academic-stress week. Even more interesting—almost mind-blowing—was that during the academic-stress weeks, they were 3.2 times as likely to get hurt as during a low-academic stress week. In other words, someone in the two-deep was more likely to get hurt during a test week than during training camp. Talk about shocking!

During the in-season, all the lifts at the core of our program are done off of velocity. We have found that this helps normalize things for our athletes. The ones playing a lot are often a bit more beat-up from additional reps in practices and games. Their current 1Rm might be lower due to the stress they are undergoing. The backups or those who don’t play at all might actually increase in load from week to week and gain strength. The main source of their energy expenditure and stress is in actuality the strength training.

I bring all of that up to make this point: Strength is variable, and it is very variable due to all of the other stressors that occur in your life. While some talk about the fatiguing effect of maximal intended velocity, I think that it’s a good thing, especially when you stay at the higher velocities. It greatly regulates the loads that can be utilized. If athletes are fatigued, they reduce the load they are lifting because their 1RM isn’t what was tested months before; it was much less that day. With the utilization of velocity and its near-perfect relationship with 1RM, the proper load is always utilized. By tracking these loads longitudinally, we can see what long-term adaptations or issues are occurring.

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

 

Related Articles

Dr. Mann’s eBook Developing Explosive Athletes: Velocity Based Training is available at EliteFTS.

Given the inconclusive evidence surrounding the use of caffeine as a performance-enhancing supplement and the significant metabolic consequences on glucose disposal in a sedentary state, athletes should use caution and consume caffeine in moderation.

Researchers continue to study caffeine, which is allowed by the NCAA and US Olympic Committee, to determine its enhancement effects on athletic performance in training and competition. Caffeine is rapidly absorbed by the body within five to fifteen minutes of ingestion. Peak levels in the blood occur between forty and eighty minutes, making it ideal for immediate training benefit (Spriet, 2014). With a half-life of three to five hours, caffeine’s effects can last for the better part of a day.

Low doses of caffeine, 3mg/kg body weight or less, improve vigilance, alertness, mood, and cognitive abilities without negative side effects (Spriet, 2014). Higher doses often result in gastrointestinal upset, dizziness, nervousness, insomnia, confusion, tachycardia (rapid heart rate), and the inability to focus (Spriet, 2014).

Endurance Exercise

The first dose-response study, performed in 1995, involved a cycling time trial performance test. Cyclists ingested 3, 6, and 9mg/kg of caffeine sixty minutes before the time trial (Spriet, 2014). The cyclists who took the 3 and 6mg/kg doses showed a 22% increase in time trial performance while the high-dose group demonstrated only an 11% non-significant increase (Spriet, 2014).

Another study, where well-trained cyclists ingested low-dose caffeine late in an endurance race, showed that both 1.5 and 3mg/kg were ergogenic when ingested late in an exhaustive ride (Spriet, 2014). Caffeine intake pre-workout showed 4.2% and 2.9% improvement in cycling performance when 3 and 6mg/kg were consumed, respectively, indicating a decrease in dose-response efficacy similar to the first two studies mentioned (Spriet, 2014).

In running performance, the evidence is a bit less consistent. Some researchers found that 150-200mg of caffeine improved 1500m performance by 4.2s in well-trained males, whereas another study involving a longer distance event (3 x 18km in 8 days) showed no performance effect of low-dose (90mg or ~1.3mg/kg) (Spriet, 2014). In an 8K time trial involving well-trained male runners, a 24-second, or 1.8%, improvement was observed with 3mg/kg caffeine ingested sixty minutes before the event (Spriet, 2014). An average of 3.6% performance improvement across multiple endurance sports was collected from studies with ingestion amounts ranging from a 2-5mg/kg (mean = 3% enhancement) and >5mg/kg loading dose (mean = 7% enhancement) (Shearer & Graham, 2014).

Anaerobic Exercise

In power-based sports requiring short, anaerobic bursts of activity, the evidence of caffeine’s ergogenic effect on performance is conflicting. An increasing number of studies have been published involving HIIT training, resistance training, and force-production activity. Studies observed improvements in peak power (Wingate test) and absolute strength when consuming 5 and 7mg/kg body mass, respectively.

Few studies exist on the effect of low-dose supplementation (Spriet, 2014). One study by Lorino, Lloyd, Crixell, and Walker (2006) examined caffeine’s effect on agility performance in the Proagility run and 30-second Wingate test. Sixteen recreationally active males, who were in a two-hour fasted state, received a dose of 3mg/kg of body weight an hour before testing (Lorino et al., 2006). Researchers based the dosage on the midpoint of the commonly tested range of 3-9mg/kg bodyweight (Lorino et al., 2006). There was no significant change in peak power, mean power, percent power decrease, and proagility performance (Lorino et al., 2006). The study concluded that caffeine ingested at this dosage did not enhance performance in recreationally active males, but that the results could not be extrapolated to anaerobically trained athletes (Lorino et al., 2006).

Metabolic Effects

Popular theory states that caffeine produces positive effects on fatty acid metabolism and carbohydrate utilization in the tissue, but these metabolic changes are unlikely to occur in exercise lasting less than thirty to forty minutes (Shearer & Graham, 2014). The mechanism by which caffeine affects skeletal muscle metabolism involves its interaction with ryanodine calcium receptors. Specifically, caffeine augments the release of intracellular calcium for increased force production and the shortening of muscle fiber (Shearer & Graham, 2014). Of course, the positive effects are extremely time- and temperature-sensitive and largely dependent on fiber type due to the differences in calcium kinetics, with a greater benefit in slow-twitch than fast-twitch fibers (Shearer & Graham, 2014).

Caffeine’s use as a performance-enhancing supplement should be carefully restricted to athletes. The consumption of caffeine and caffeinated beverages has significant metabolic consequences on glucose disposal in a sedentary state (Shearer & Graham, 2014). Administering caffeine before a glucose tolerance test or an insulin clamp (the gold standard for measuring insulin resistance) resulted in a 30% disposal rate in both tests, creating a hyperinsulinemic and hyperlipidemic state of metabolism (Shearer & Graham, 2014). This means that less than one-third of the glucose is taken up into the cells, and even less makes it to skeletal muscle for glycogen storage (Shearer & Graham, 2014).

Given the half-life of caffeine, its effects on insulin resistance may last through several meals of the day. The consequences of this have implications in the development and progression of chronic diseases, even in previously healthy individuals (Shearer & Graham, 2014). An analysis of healthy subjects showed that caffeine impairs glucose uptake by 26% (Shearer & Graham, 2014). Importantly, a decrease in insulin sensitivity under similar testing conditions was not improved with exercise in another experimental study (Shearer & Graham, 2014). Because caffeine’s benefits are not conclusively supported, from the standpoint of both performance and metabolic physiology, athletes should take caution and supplement with caffeine in moderation.

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

Spiret, L. L. (2014). “Exercise and sport performance with low doses of caffeine.” Sports Medicine. 44(Suppl 2) (2014): S175-S184.

Lorino, A. J., L. K. Lloyd, S. H. Crixell, and J.L. Walker. “The effects of caffeine and athletic agility.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 20(4) (2016): 851-854.

Shearer, J., and T. E. Graham. “Performance effects and metabolic consequences of caffeine and caffeinated energy drink consumption on glucose disposal.” Nutrition Reviews. 72(S1) (2014): 121-136.

In sports training, coaches and trainers are constantly searching for the way to attain greater returns on work done and minimize the stress on the athlete’s neuromuscular system. One of the most difficult areas to work in is the development of the most critical of human performance factors in dynamic sports: Power.

Power development is totally dependent on the speed of movement, and therefore creates numerous problems for the coach and athlete. Once an athlete starts to accelerate a mass, such as a normal barbell, they create high amounts of inertia. This needs to be slowed down—for instance, in a push press—or absorbed, such as landing from a jump squat. Both speed reduction and returning mass absorption place extreme strain on the body’s soft tissues and skeleton. This strain doesn’t just eventually lead to overuse injuries—it is also a very inefficient way of training.

This problem is drastically increased as trainers decrease load and increase speed. So, when you are moving in the direction you need to develop power, you are restricted by the equipment. Another problem is that you cannot change the weight in the eccentric phase as you can in the concentric when using traditional equipment.

Developing Power With the 1080 Quantum

The 1080 Quantum doesn’t have these problems because of its patented No Flying Weight mode, which is a normal weight with the ability to stop inertia when you stop the movement. Therefore, an athlete using the 1080 Quantum can accelerate through the body’s whole range of motion, increasing the work phase considerably. Additionally, because there’s no mass to stop, there’s no undue stress on joints and ligaments.

As you add weight in the eccentric phase, every repetition becomes more efficient because humans are 30 percent stronger in the eccentric phase. Normally, athletes would have to do eccentric training in a separate session. However, with the 1080 Quantum, these phases can be combined in the same session, giving the athlete a much more functional training session that’s very close to what is actually done in the sporting arena. The 1080 Quantum has enabled extremely large gains in power development. The most striking difference is the amount of work, or rather the lack of work, done to obtain these results.

To test this, I used a 1080 Quantum Syncro system, which includes two 1080 Quantum units and a smith rack. The study subject was an international-level 110m hurdler who participated in two training sessions a week for six weeks.

The robotic technology embedded in the 1080 Quantum allows for different resistance settings, and the ability to set load and speed independent of the concentric and eccentric phases of an exercise or movement. The exercise used was a single leg squat. In the concentric phase, an isokinetic (speed limit) setting was used. This can also be called variable resistance, since the load of the system is matched by what the athlete is able to generate. In the eccentric phase, a constant load was used.

The athlete saw an increase of power when he used the 1080 Quantum for exercises such as con-ecc squats and one-legged squats, in three sets of five repetitions twice a week for a period of six weeks, with loads no higher than 180 pounds. He got to levels that were never attainable using conventional training equipment and methods.

Using the 1080 Quantum, the athlete got to power levels that were never before attainable. Share on X

One of the differences in equipment is that the 1080 allows acceleration in the eccentric phase—which recruits fast twitch fibers—and then decreases the speed allowed in the concentric phase. But, because the athlete is trying to accelerate during the concentric phase, they are only using fast twitch fibers. As we have decreased the speed allowed, we can then increase the time (time under tension) in which we are using fast twitch fibers considerably, compared to traditional weights. This leads to a much higher/longer activation of fast twitch fibers compared to the use of a traditional weight, where we have only a very short time period in which we have contact with the weight before it becomes airborne! This dramatic increase in the activation of fast twitch fibers causes greater work load and thus, the athlete is unable to produce the necessary power for more than three sets of five repetitions before fatigue sets in.

• Blue – two legs
• Red – left leg
• Green – Right leg
• Con Peak power
• Con TP(W)
• PP Watt/kgBW
• TP Watt/kgBW

Developing a Protocol

As the 1080 system is fully functional, you can apply this principle to any exercise you want. You can use a custom-made smith machine to work traditional exercises in the vertical plane and then utilize the 1080’s 5m off cable to work a host of horizontal plane movements. Coaches at the Malmo Sports Academy in Sweden—including Kenneth Riggberger, myself, and others—use a method of accumulation and intensification over periods ranging from two to four weeks, depending on the time of year and goals for a specific period.

We work a great deal to first increase capacity (strength) at slow speeds in the eccentric phase, and then speed up the eccentric phase as well as the concentric phase. The ability to rapidly decelerate in the eccentric phase is of primary importance, because it is where most athletes are lacking when tested.

We have found that, when we alter the natural phases of how a resistance works in either isokinetic or isotonic mode, we need to return to a normal barbell and load in order to “re-program” the neuro-muscular system. Below is the protocol used by Coach Riggberger that has produced Olympic finalists. The results of the intervention with the 110m hurdler are also from the Malmo Sports Academy.

The chart clearly shows the speeds in the eccentric phases for Phase 1 and Phase 2, demonstrating how we speed up eccentric and slow down concentric speeds in order to work the time-under-tension portion even harder.

We have just finished testing a protocol using a first phase of 0.2 m/s and 0.3-0.5 m/s in the concentric phase in order to work two extremes in each repetition. This is extremely hard, and after two to three sets of five reps, the athletes are totally exhausted. We then work eccentric overload of up to +30% and slow speeds (you can even add an isometric stop in bottom position) and also limit speed and load (as we have higher in the eccentric) in the concentric phase to increase the time under tension dramatically. The rest period is 10 minutes between sets because, otherwise, the athlete simply doesn’t recover enough to complete three sets with the desired effect. In initial trials, this has given us unprecedented strength gains and also big gains in power, if done in short periods of up to eight to 10 sessions.

The potential for strength and power gains is enormous. Any strength and conditioning staff that is looking at getting the biggest bang for their buck should look into the 1080 Quantum system and what it can do for your strength facility.

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