Blog

 

 

Every coach looks for the panacea of workouts to make athletes faster. The Holy Grail of workouts. I am not talking about a program that works for the first couple years of training. Fly 10’s can help that athlete. I am talking about a program that works when the basics no longer do. I know the perfect plan does not exist. There are too many factors in play when creating a workout. Designing a program for an advanced athlete is especially difficult.

There is the art of coaching. What is the coach’s feel for what’s going on with their athlete? Where does the flow of the moment lead? There is raw data from a myriad of tests available, ranging from Omegawave to a quick vertical jump or even the basic tap test on an iPhone. There are external factors, like the weather.

Last summer in Chicago, it rained most days, and the temperatures were cool. On top of that, the street where I live, which serves as my 70m training track, was filled with heavy machinery as a builder tore down and rebuilt three houses. My house was in the middle of the construction. For four weeks, there was dirt, mud, and pebbles everywhere. The surface was not prime for sprinting, to say the least.

I experienced a perfect storm that summer with the construction plus five veteran athletes who trained as a group. By veteran, I mean more than three years of training experience with me. They are very accomplished athletes in their sport. Most of them worked with Dr. Kerry Heitkotter due to her ability to design programs for their cellular health and to oversee how they dealt with the stresses of training. Also, Dr. Kerry Egan was playing with light, color, and sound to make sure the systems were optimal.

I stayed on top of the athletes physically with Douglas Heel’s Be Activated work. And I had the newest and coolest of the latest and greatest toys. I had two Exxentric kBoxes and a 1080 Sprint. They have elaborate monitoring systems, and the 1080 Sprint tracks every step in a run.

My ankle rocker circuit was a constant in all the workouts. We started with various ankle jumps cycled with velocity based training on my Hammer Strength Deadlift machine. We used the GymAware to monitor the speed of the lift. We added weight as long as an athlete could keep the bar speed over 1.5 m/s. The bar speed limited the number of reps. We also performed single leg jumps on the Shuttle MVP, focusing on ankle rocker from the jump. The last part of this French Contrast (thanks to Cal Dietz at XLAthlete.com) were rubber band supported jumps (to do this, hang the bands from the ceiling to assist the jump). We performed two sets of half squats on the kBox before we left my basement and went out.

Once outside, I rotated three blocks. Block 1 was our acceleration block. This consisted of 40m runs with the 1080 Sprint which waved between variable resistance runs and regular pulls, the heaviest being 12 kg of resistance. The athletes next performed a single leg squat on the kBox. Again, we waved the sets; one on their own and one where I pulled up, and they had to catch and go up on their own. They usually made it through four sets before they experienced a substantial drop in output on the kBox and 1080 Sprint.

Block 2 was an overspeed session. We started with mini-hurdle work. With the more advanced athlete, I normally use longer distances. This summer, however, I felt like keeping the hurdles short at 1.5m. I found that, by keeping the hurdles short and having the athletes run at a higher speed, they trained to get their feet off the ground faster. Two of them experienced a dramatic improvement in form.

To train the feet to get off the ground faster, keep hurdles short and run at higher speed. Share on X

I measured their max velocity on their first free run and added 3% to that speed. This became the speed at which the 1080 Spring towed them for whatever distance I set. In this case 30m. They worked in a 30m fly before the 1080 Sprint started to tow. After three reps, they were toast. Following these workouts, everyone’s numbers in the basement work, power output, and jump heights had big increases. Three guys vertically jumped 37 inches. I want to look into this more in the future.

Block 3 was our fly day. We ran fly 10’s on the slick dirty street, pairing them with kBox assisted RDL’s. I pulled up with them, and they would stop it and bring it back up. We usually stayed on both legs, although I do like the single leg version.

In the end, all the guys broke 1.0 in the fly 10. I had a girl go 1.07. I had three guys run .96 and one ran .98. For three of the athletes, this was a .05 improvement in four weeks. The day they ran, Peter Holmertz at Motion 1080 filmed one of the .96’s. The all-time best on the street is .947.

The surface, however, does change over time. Eight years ago, the village had just repaved the street, and it had good traction. Now the street is slick. I try to run fly on days when the temp is over 85 degrees so the records will not be temperature dependent. That made it hard last summer in Chicago. We had two days over that temperature in July. And we ran our fly 10’s on both of those days.

Can I replicate this? I don’t know. I have to wait until July. The equipment will be there. Hopefully, the docs will be there as well. But weather changes quickly here. It will be in the 40-70 degree range in September, and it is difficult to run fast when it’s cool. When it’s cold outside, the track I use is not as long as the one in my yard, and I’ll need to be creative to do overspeed. Even in April and May it stays cool, and I don’t know the impact cold has on overspeed training, or spikes for that matter.

Like everything else in life, I savor the moment. It will probably never happen the same way again. Galahad only saw the Holy Grail. He never touched it. Also, I don’t know if I want to find the Holy Grail of sprint workouts. Galahad died after finding his.

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

 

 

While electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) training has been around for decades, its benefits on the human body were first discovered in ancient times. Patients in Egypt and Rome were treated with electric fish, rays, and eels put in their bathing pools. Because each gives off a different electric discharge, they were used to treat a range of illnesses. The discovery of electricity in the 1800s led to further experiments on electricity’s applications in medicine.

In the 1970s, electricity became the answer to a new problem: muscle atrophy in astronauts. The absence of gravity meant no conventional ground exercises could be performed, and muscle tone regression was countered with EMS. The technology was later introduced in professional sports, where it first appeared in the rehabilitation of injured athletes. Then, as EMS research proved that it led to significant increases in an athlete’s endurance, stamina, and fitness levels, it started to be used as a training method as well.

EMS research was proven to significantly increase an athlete’s endurance, stamina, fitness levels. Share on X

The next milestone for EMS occurred in the 1990s, when a new generation of EMS equipment was developed, not for professional athletes, but for “regular” people trying to get into shape. The new devices stimulated the entire body when paired with active exercises. A pair of electrodes were placed on all main muscle groups—including thighs, gluteus, abdomen, back, and arm muscles—and the simultaneous stimulation, along with exercises focused on these muscle groups, provided outstanding efficiency.

Muscles contracted then relaxed due to the low-frequency electrical stimulation. The aerobic muscular metabolism was increased and fat burn began. During these workouts, muscles had an increased development rate and the effect of calorie burning could be felt for several days afterward. This immediately positioned EMS as a perfect exercise form for people with weight management issues, cellulite, or back posture problems, or who just wanted to improve their overall health.

Unfortunately, some EMS devices that appeared on the market during that time period had a questionable impact. For instance, the “weight loss” Slendertone-style slimming belt that was advertised on late-night TV, promising to give a person six-pack abs while they simply sat on the sofa. Customers were deceived by the false advertising, which used young models with perfectly toned bodies as well as computer-generated images, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission banned their sale. While it should seem obvious that there’s no substitute for real exercise and a nutritious diet, this kind of deceit positioned EMS devices as a fad, instead of the viable training aids that they are.

EMS training devices started to become a worldwide phenomenon in the early 2010s, with their biggest market in Europe—particularly Germany and Western Europe. Technology has advanced since the first EMS machines were created and so has the way they are used to work out. Today, one of the most efficient ways to utilize EMS is with an E-Fit 1280US device, the first EMS full-body system cleared by the FDA.

E-Fit, or Electro Fitness, was founded by Dr. Janos Papp in 2010 in Hungary to increase the effectiveness of EMS and advance EMS training. The company created a suit made of a special type of material with electrodes running throughout to contract the wearer’s muscles. E-Fit also developed a program of quick, very intense workouts with personal trainers and technology to support the regimen (and created an app for it). They researched, performed tests, and marketed the high-tech machine all over Europe. Full-body EMS training means working the body at its maximum efficiency. Athletes, bodybuilders, and fitness models loved it and E-Fit became a huge hit.

Embracing the E-Fit Program

As the owner and founder of 4U Fitness, I watched E-Fit’s successful launch and saw that it had staying power in Europe. In 2012, I introduced E-Fit to the U.S., and incorporated the full-body EF-1280US EMS workout system into my 4U Fitness studio franchise in Tampa, Florida. By doing so, I created a high-tech, hybrid fitness studio franchise—the only one of its kind offering EMS in the U.S. We also have a line of equipment and supplements.

4U Fitness and E-Fit developed an app to make it easy to schedule appointments and send out reminders. The app also controls the EF-1280 machine and records data for each client. (For example, what exercises were done, the strength of the current during each exercise, how many reps were completed, etc.) This allows them to review their progress and see the improvements along the way.

Our 4U Fitness clients enjoy the high-tech system. Users can view themselves on the screen in 3D, and actually see what they are doing to their bodies—how their muscles react to their movements by contracting and relaxing. It’s like watching a scientific movie.

 

After going through the process with the FDA for nearly three years, the EF-1280 earned an FDA clearance in October 2014. It is the only full-body EMS training device with this status. This past spring, fitness model Erin Stern became the face of the 4U Fitness brand. Erin is a two-time Ms. Figure Olympia champion, former Jr. All-American high jumper, and published author. She has been using E-Fit and working out at 4U Fitness to prepare for photo shoots and fitness competitions.

 

E-Fit is the foundation of 4U Fitness and almost everyone can use it—people who want to lose weight, lose inches, get rid of cellulite, and/or tone their bodies, as well as athletes and others who want to switch up their workout routine. E-Fit can help everybody achieve these goals. However, it is important to note that a few groups of people should not use E-Fit, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, and people with pacemakers or heart problems.

How E-Fit Training Works

As noted, the scientifically based E-Fit workout program is designed to crank up the intensity of traditional workouts, and is customized to each client’s needs. Electrodes throughout the suit target the major muscle groups simultaneously, including: pectoral muscles, latissimus dorsi muscles, bicep and tricep muscles, lower back section of abdominal muscles, gluteal muscles and quadriceps femoris muscles, hamstrings, and calf muscles. The suit stimulates the entire body, making the muscles repeatedly contract and relax during the entire workout. This stimulation of 350 muscles, combined with active exercising, makes the workout as intense as possible and the results as outstanding as possible.

Every E-Fit session is 20 minutes long, and guided by a personal trainer, who controls and adjusts the intensity of the electrical currents. While wearing the suit, the user performs sets of exercises determined by the trainer, including pushups, lunges, squats, etc. Trainers can add more electrodes, depending on the user’s needs, and also increase the strength of the electrical current to make the muscles work to their maximum capability. They can also decrease the amount of stimulation during each exercise, making E-Fit a low-impact, easy-on-the-joints workout, no weights required. (For more advanced users, a workout with weights is more common.)

The trainer uses the app to control the session, which records data from the workout. These records then help the trainer decide how to adjust the user’s sessions from week to week.

Because the workout is so intense, the recommended frequency is just two 20-minute sessions per week. Advanced athletes can withstand three 20-minute sessions in a week. Even with a necessary 48-hour rest period between E-Fit sessions, the regimen can easily fit into most users’ schedules—especially when you compare it to the traditional training period of 90 minutes daily. E-Fit provides intense, efficient, high-tech workouts that are great for almost everyone.

A lot of users with back pain notice a reduction in pain after working out with E-Fit. The user still works the muscles, but without the heavy lifting. Fat burning is an indirect benefit of EMS training. The expedited process allows the fat-burning process to begin sooner in the workout because the muscles are working harder than in a traditional workout. A low setting on the E-Fit machine increases the blood circulation and stimulates the tissue holding the fat, burning the cellulite.

Why Use E-Fit?

The full-body EMS EF-1280 workout system is highly efficient, enabling users to reach their fitness goals in a safe and timely manner. The EMS technology provides the equivalent of an hour’s workout in 20 minutes. During the training session, the device works 350 different muscles, contracting them a total of 36,000 times—that alone tells you how intense a workout it is. While it takes, on average, four sessions to see results, research has proven that working out with E-Fit is 18 times more effective than traditional training.

In a 20-minute E-Fit training session, 350 different muscles are worked, contracting 36,000 times. Share on X

A study at German Sport University Cologne compared traditional strength training methods to full-body EMS training in order to assess the impact on an athlete’s strength and speed. The researchers concluded that: “Dynamic full body EMS training… proved to be a highly effective means of increasing strength and speed as compared to other training methods” [1].

J. Vatter at Universität Bayreuth conducted a field study on the impact of full-body EMS training on a group of 134 people, both male and female. The subjects performed a full-body EMS workout twice a week for 12 weeks, dropping their body fat by an average of 1.4 percent. Eighty-two percent of participants noted that they’d gained relief from back pain as well [2].

Research by Mohd Faridz Ahmad and Amirul Hakim Hasbullah from the Universiti Teknologi MARA in Malaysia focused on using EMS to build male skeletal muscle mass. The results of the study found that “[Using an EMS to increase skeletal muscle mass is] beneficial to all human beings that in searched [sic] for healthy lifestyle and also good for athletes” [3].

As I’ve noted, there are multiple benefits of E-Fit training, including:

• Quick workouts
• Builds muscles
• Trains large muscle groups simultaneously
• Protects joints
• Burns fat
• Improves the appearance of cellulite
• Reduces back pain
• Features personal training
• Suitable for all ages, regardless of fitness level

In general, E-Fit training is not significantly more expensive than the combined cost of a regular gym membership and a good-quality personal trainer. The results more than pay for themselves.

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

• Speicher, U, Nowak, S, Schmithüsen, J, Kleinöder, H, Mester. Long- and short- term training results through mechanical and Electro Muscle Stimulation (EMS) based on strength parameters. German Sport University Cologne 2008; published inter alia in BISp yearbook– research publication 2008/09.
• Vatter, J. Electro Muscle Stimulation (EMS) as a full body training – Multi-fitness centre study. Universität Bayreuth, 2003; Publication AVM-Verlag München 2010.
• Ahmad, MF, and Hasbullah, AH. The Effects of Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) towards Male Skeletal Muscle Mass. International Journal of Medical, Health, Biomedical, Bioengineering and Pharmaceutical Engineering. 2015; 9(12):860-869.

 

Designing a well-structured training program is vital for coaching track and field, and a big dilemma for coaches is how to accomplish event work for athletes who compete in more than one discipline. This is especially true for combined-event athletes, but also for sprinters/hurdlers, hurdler/high jumpers, and pole vault/long jumpers on both the high school and collegiate levels.

There are many options for programming and sequencing event work. I don’t believe any single methodology of compatibility is unequivocally better than another, but I do believe every coach needs to understand the overlap, differences, and interplay among the various approaches.

In this article, I will discuss different methodologies to sequence and pair event-specific work, and I’ll provide recommendations for best practices in the scholastic setting.

The importance of speed and power development cannot be stressed enough. Optimum development occurs when these two qualities are trained concurrently. Speed and power training improves neuromuscular integration by accelerating speed, strength, and coordination acquisition. It also improves muscle fiber recruitment, rate coding capabilities, and motor unit synchronization. When we organize training by high neural demand, we elicit an optimal and specific adaptation at the cellular level.

Due to the varying technical and physical demands of training for multiple events, however, programming can present numerous challenges. For example, the excessive density of high neural demand days will compromise the athlete’s central nervous system (CNS). An insufficient number of high-intensity days, though, will not induce any positive adaptations.

A too-heavy focus on event-specific technique work will stump long terms gains. But athletes need to be technically proficient (or at least competent) in an event to capitalize on their talent. During the mesocycle before a competition, it’s recommended that athletes practice at high intensity for consecutive days. Alternating high and low-intensity days, however, allows the nervous system to recover while work is still accomplished on the low-intensity, general days.

The interplay of these considerations determines the program’s success.

What should athletes do, for example, on high jump days? They could pair high jump work with acceleration development because the two have similar time programs. They could high jump on days they do max velocity work because both employ vertical firing patterns. They could also high jump before a special endurance workout, modeling a decathlete who races the 400m after high jumping.

Background

First, it’s important to understand each event’s requirements through a simple needs analysis. Speed and power capabilities are the dominant determinants of success for sprinters, hurdlers, and jumpers (400m runners come with a bit of a caveat, but they’re still clearly speed and power athletes). Training for combined-event athletes should also center on developing speed and power. For decathletes, nine out of ten of their events qualify as speed or power. For heptathletes, 6.5 out of their 7 events qualify.

For combined-event athletes, work capacity capabilities are more important than aerobic “fitness.” Share on X

There is a misguided notion that combined-event athletes need an aerobic base to be “fit” enough to withstand the rigors of competition. Work capacity capabilities are more important than an aerobic base because combined-event athletes must perform speed and power events at full intensity on two consecutive days. Developing these qualities with sprints, hurdles, jumps, and throws should be a top priority for coaches and athletes.

Pairing Philosophies

Pair by Time Programs

It’s common to pair event work by exercises that have similar time programs. A time program is a movement-specific innervation pattern. It’s determined by the neuromuscular impulse sequence of muscle activation as well as the duration and behavior of bioelectrical activity.

The ground contact time of a drop jump, for example, is a time program; it’s a quantitative expression of the fundamental movement program. Structurally similar movements are steered by the same time program, and time programs of varying lengths must be distinguished.

We can consider time programs for track and field movements in terms of ground contact times. Generally, shorter ground contact times lead to a more effective time program. Think of an athlete’s dorsiflexed ankle while at top speed, pretensioning before ground contact. By pairing similar time programs, we can send direct and concise messages to the CNS and a transfer among structurally similar movements becomes possible1.

Why pay attention to ground contact time (GCT) at all? The key to jumping far or running fast is generating a high amount of ground reaction force within the very short time period the foot is on the ground.

Everything comes back to power, which has both force and velocity components. Exercises such as squats are great for developing the force component of power, but very high-speed movements (i.e., GCT < 200ms) are needed to develop power’s velocity component.

Stratifying by GCT can also help frame the session’s goal. In jumps training, there is explosive strength and elastic strength, with a GCT threshold of about 200ms serving as the dividing line.2 Exercises such as box jumps, jump squats, and the Olympic lifts train the former while exercises such as hurdle hops, sprinting, and bounding train the latter.

The table below shows observed ground contact times in various events:

 

From this, we can draw a few observations about which events naturally pair well. If working on acceleration, it makes sense to also work on high jump takeoffs since they have similar time programs.

If working on max velocity or short speed endurance, it makes sense to work on long jump takeoffs. While there aren’t many pole vault triple-jump combo athletes, coaches could plan bounding work with pole vault sessions.

Pair by Time of Force Application

Pairing event work according to the duration of power output will overlap with time programs. The idea is to work on events that have a similar force application. Think of this as a subgroup created by separating neuromuscular demands. For example, performing between-the-legs forward medicine ball throws helps potentiate for block starts.

Performing between-the-legs forward medicine ball throws helps potentiate for block starts. Share on X

In fact, we can build from a time programming pairing and prescribe the session’s workout based on the time of force application. If max velocity is the stressed quality of the day, then the weight room exercises of that day should complement the max velocity work performed on the track. Since max velocity running emphasizes high vertical ground forces and low GCTs, a natural weight room exercise following that session would be assisted jumps. We prescribe the day’s plan using similarities in the duration of force application.

Coaches can prescribe a day’s plan using exercises with similar duration of force application. Share on X

Within the track session, the athlete may perform 3-6 reps sprinting through a 20m zone at max velocity. Let’s call that 6-8 ground contacts per repetition. Executing an exercise like 4 sets of 8 reps of assisted jumps gives a similar time of force application. Linking these two exercises through similar power output durations reinforces the goals of the day.

This philosophy also makes the coach more conscious of total power output duration. This is critical because extended times of high power activities need to be carefully monitored to avoid overtraining and increasing the likelihood of injury.

To allow for the compensatory effects of high demand days and to minimize neural fatigue, low power output days should be included in an appropriate ratio.

Pair by Metabolic Demands

Pairing by metabolic demands resembles the time of force applications groupings, such as max velocity sprinting and assisted jumps. However, the differences between these two philosophies lead to important dividing lines when programming. For example, even though acceleration and max velocity work have different times of force application, they have essentially the same metabolic demands.

Organizing sessions according to energy system demands partitions workouts into one of three areas: activities that draw upon the alactic, glycolytic, or aerobic energy systems.

The alactic anaerobic (i.e., phosphate) system is the first energy system we use. It’s the muscles’ dominant energy source for roughly the first 10 seconds of high-intensity exertion. Next, the glycolytic (i.e., lactic) energy system takes over. This contributes most of the energy for as long as 90 seconds of activity. After a sustained bout of high-intensity exercise beyond 1.5-2 minutes, the aerobic system contributes the most energy. I’ve listed below example workouts grouped by metabolic demands:

• Alactic: 3x3x30m starts (3’/8’) + heavy cleans and squats
• Glycolytic: 5×45” runs at 85% (4’) + a general bodyweight strength circuit (3:1 work:rest)
• Aerobic: 8x200m at 65% (2’) + a general bodyweight strength circuit (1:1 work:rest)

Pair by Technical Similarities

Organizing event work by technical similarities can be broken down into two important subgroups; we can pair exercises by the orientation of firing patterns (horizontal vs. vertical) or by rhythm. Each subgroup offers an approach we can use to link events.

Longer sprints (between 50m and 300m) feature high vertical ground forces and emphasize the elasticity of the athlete’s musculature and pairs naturally with high jump work. Building from that, the high jump and the javelin also have similar approach rhythms (similar penultimate steps and body posture).

A logical sequence of events for a session would be javelin work, followed by high jump work, followed by a speed endurance workout. Even though the high jump is paired with two different events for two different reasons, the sequence of these three provides a natural practice flow based on technical similarities.

Pair Using Meet Modeling

While it’s impossible to truly simulate meet conditions in practice, sequencing event work according to the meet schedule can pay dividends in an athlete’s preparedness to compete. In addition to the combined events, this practice can be useful for specific meets.

Sequencing event work according to the meet schedule can pay dividends in performance. Share on X

At a championship meet, for example, are the 110m high hurdles before or after the 400m intermediate hurdles? This helps dictate practice set-up. Likewise, many invitational meets will start field events one to two hours before track events. If the athlete might long jump before running the 60m dash, it makes sense to work long jump approaches before technical acceleration work.

For the combined-event athlete, this is particularly important since every multi-meet will follow the same schedule. Heptathletes always hurdle in their first event and then high jump. Because we know this, it makes sense to practice hurdles followed by high jumps in the same practice session.

Also, since high jumps require a relatively long GCT for a jumping event, an athlete could practice hurdle starts (working on acceleration, which has a relatively long GCT compared to max velocity running or speed endurance work) and then work high jump takeoffs.

Decathletes always high jump first and then run the 400m. As discussed earlier, pairing high jump work with longer sprint work can be successful because the firing patterns are similar. In each of these cases, high jump is paired with another event according to the meet schedule.

This can create a logistical challenge when a team includes both males and females. Since decathletes high jump in their first event and heptathletes high jump in their second event, this can create an extremely long practice for the coach.

To combat this, the coach must pick and choose event pairings to fit logistics. In this example, if the coach is intent on having the decathletes simulate running a 400m after high jumping, the coach can change the heptathletes’ practice so they also high jump first followed by speed endurance. This specific example works out well because heptathletes will high jump and run a 200m dash on the same day. The coach will plan a meet-specific day for the heptathletes for another time.

When planning based on meet preparation, coaches should realize that a combined-event athlete specifically needs to practice execution on back-to-back high neural days. Although I usually like following high-intensity CNS days with low-intensity general days, it’s important to have subsequent high-intensity days to prepare athletes for their two-day competitions.

During the general prep and specific prep phases, I like to alternate high and low days. This takes advantage of an alternating system’s benefits to build the best athlete possible, in the purest sense of the word.

Next, it’s vital to include back-to-back high-intensity days in the pre-competition and competition phases to help transition the athlete into the best combined-event athlete possible.

For decathletes, this includes working long jump and max velocity on the first day and then hurdles and vault work on the second day. For heptathletes, this includes working hurdles and high jump together on one day, followed by javelin and aerobic power work the next day.

For all combined-event athletes, it’s important they practice a technical event (hurdles or vault for men, long jump or javelin for women) the day after finishing a practice with speed endurance work. The more acclimated they are to executing events with high technical, speed, and power demands under neural fatigue from the previous day, the better they will perform in the meet.

Additional Thoughts, Guidelines, and Recommendations

• During general and specific prep periods, begin sessions with technical work when the athlete is not fatigued. This is especially important for developing athletes. Regarding the microcycle, do more technical work at the beginning of the week when the athlete is fresher.
• Use lower intensity days to emphasize a lot of technical work.
  • This provides the added benefit of increased motor unit recruitment and targets any residual muscle fibers not fully activated from the prior day’s session.
  • As high-intensity days become more intense, the lower intensity days require a shift in focus from building work capacity to recovery.
  • Complementary training can be used. The athlete, for example, would complete a hard long jump day on Monday followed by reinforcement through easy long jump drills on Tuesday, or javelin throws one day followed by javelin-specific medicine ball throws the next day.
• When using a high-low scheme, do accelerations on Monday (Day 1 of the microcycle) to potentiate for max velocity work on Wednesday (Day 3 of the microcycle).
• You don’t need to address every event every week, especially in the scholastic environment. Yes, in a professional environment, it’s common for decathletes to throw every day, but it’s not practical for students dealing with 15-18 credits and other extracurricular activities.
  • Keep in mind that each athlete has his or her own strengths and weaknesses that need to be addressed at varying levels. Many younger college decathletes may need to spend more time pole vaulting since it’s a difficult event to practice in high school.
• You can use long jump approach work either as acceleration or max velocity fly work, depending on the length and rhythm of the athlete’s approach.
• It’s important to use all of the philosophies I’ve mentioned to develop a multilateral approach to training.
• Pair weight room exercises and plyometrics accordingly, not just event work. For example:
  • Deep box squats and broad jumps on acceleration days (overcoming inertia).
  • Clean-grip snatches and explosive hurdle hops on max velocity days (explosive lift with a large amplitude).
• Don’t forget the importance of general days.

Sample Programs

Here are two sample programs that employ these ideas. First is a brief, two-microcycle layout for a decathlete during his specific prep phase using a reverse step loading pattern:

 

As you can see, the event work is paired at various points according to time program, power output, metabolic demands, rhythm, and meet specificity.

In Week One, the athlete will high jump fresh on Day 1 and then work long jump takeoffs while sore on Day 2. In Week Two, he will long jump fresh on Day 1 and then work high jump while sore on Day 2. He gets practice pole vaulting while fatigued to simulate meet conditions (Week 1, Day 6). Day 3 of both weeks is a very high-intensity max velocity day on the track paired with assisted jumps and clean-grip snatches in the weight room. Each of these days is followed by a very easy general day to allow the athlete to recover.

Next, I’ve included a sample microcycle for a high school athlete in her pre-competition phase. She trains only four sessions per week and competes in the hurdles and long jump. She has very limited weightlifting experience, and in this case, the coach is using a forward step loading pattern:

 

I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I did writing it and please leave any comments or questions you have below. Special thanks to Nick Newman for his immense support and guidance throughout the past few months and for the years to come.

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. Elliott, Bruce, and J. Mester, eds. Training in Sport: Applying Sport Science. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, 1998.
2. Smith, Joel. “Why is Ground Contact Time Important in Plyometrics.” verticaljumping.com. 2014. Accessed July 12, 2016.
3. Newman, Nick, and Dr. Phil Graham-Smith. “Beyond the Force Velocity Curve with Assisted Jumps Training.” SimpliFaster (blog). July 13, 2016. Accessed July 31, 2016.
4. Lefever, Dan. “Considerations in Coaching the Combined Events.” U.S. Track & Field and Cross Country Coaches Association. Dec 19, 2012. Accessed July 18, 2016.
5. Broadbent, Eric. “Multi-Events Training Part 1.” Speed Endurance. Jan 6, 2014. Accessed July 14, 2016.
6. Broadbent, Eric. “Multi-Events Training Part 2.” Speed Endurance. Jan 14, 2014. Accessed July 14, 2016.
7. Broadbent, Eric. “Multi-Events Training Part 3.” Speed Endurance. Jan 21, 2014. Accessed July 14, 2016.
8. Rovelto, Cliff. “Three C’s of Combined Event Training.” USA Track & Field. July 1, 2016.
9. “Report from the Combined-Events Committees (Decathalon & Heptathalon).” USTFCCA. USA Track & Field. Dec 13, 2006. Accessed July 2, 2016.
10. Hierholzer, Kyle W. “Coaching the Multi-event Athlete.” Colorado High School Coaches Association. Accessed July 12, 2016.
11. Sunquist, Eli. “Combined Events Training for the High School Athlete.” Elite Track and Field Training. Accessed July 8, 2016.
12. Schexnayder, Boo. “Periodization Models for Speed Development Support.” National Strength and Conditioning Association. July 6, 2016. Accessed July 16, 2016.
13. Burnett, Angus. “The Biomechanics of Jumping.” ELITETRACK Sport Training & Conditioning. Accessed July 1, 2016.
14. Veney, Tony. “Sprints: Training the Energy Systems.” Coaches Education. Accessed July 24, 2016.

 

As a high school coach, I’m often asked questions about strength training. This includes the question: “Have I evolved beyond the deadlifting protocol that Barry Ross outlined in his book, Underground Secrets to Faster Running?” The answer is “No.” I’m still using his program because it’s a time-saving and efficient way to get my population of athletes stronger.

Another question I’m asked is: “Can I really say that a steady diet of deadlifting is making my athletes faster?” My answer to this is, “Yes,” and I have evidence from the “Barry Project” that I conducted back in 2005, and then detailed in a series of posts over at Mel Siff’s Supertraining group on Yahoo. Ross actually flew out from the West Coast to meet with the “test subject,” observe his training, and assess his progress.

 

A Decade-Old Training Protocol

Before the program started, my hypothesis was that a two-month program of a very specific strength protocol (the one outlined in Ross’s book), would not impact the ability of a high school athlete to achieve significant gains in speed over essentially the same amount of time.

The project had only one test subject—a respectable senior distance runner (10:03 in the 3200) who had no background in any strength training, and had shown no improvement in short speed tests (fly 30’s up to fly 75’s) in the previous three years.

The program began on December 12, 2005. In the first trial, even after preparatory instruction on the mechanics of the lift, the athlete struggled to pull his own body weight (127 pounds), rolled forward on the balls of his feet, and generally revealed what not to do in the deadlift. Seeing this, Ross acknowledged that I had not given him an “easy” subject for this experiment.

 

However, the athlete progressed quite dramatically. By January 26, 2006, he was deadlifting four sets of three reps at 280 pounds.

His perception of effort was “good” for each lift. He followed each deadlift set with plyos—falling from a 20-inch box and jumping over two 8-inch boxes. He did five repeats of these jumps, and then took a full five-minute recovery until his next set of deadlifts.

 

Our test athlete also did his push-ups and core exercises as per Ross’s protocol. We then went to the track and set up to run our fly 75’s. We generally don’t do these runs until we are outdoors in late March. However, we caught a 50-degree day, and the test subject was anxious to see what he could run, especially since his efforts in his plyos (surprisingly low contact times) indicated that he might be able to deliver on some of the strength gains he had achieved in the previous six weeks.

Before this, his best fly 75 was 9.56, which he ran in April of his junior year. For his fly 75’s on the day of the testing, he accelerated for 20 meters before the beginning of the timing zone. His first run was 9.26; an improvement from 7.8 m/s to 8.1 m/s. We timed all efforts through infrared beams, and the wind was +2.6 m/s.

He ran a second trial, and his time was 9.46 ( after a five-minute recovery). He was less aggressive in his acceleration to the first beam, and he felt that he would have been even faster if he’d approached the fly-in zone more aggressively. I confirmed his self-analysis, since I filmed a fixed 15-meter segment during each trial (10 meters prior to the second beam).

Video 1: Slow motion video of Steve that shows his stride length.

What is most interesting is that he hadn’t put in any mileage since mid-November (the end of cross country). He typically began training with the distance runners in late February, and his best race performances over 1600 and 3200 meters usually occurred in May.

His top five marks in the 3200 in his sophomore and junior years were: 10:03.16 (5/20/05), 10:07.01 (5/13/04), 10:08.17 (5/07/05), 10:09.00 (4/30/04), and 10:09.62 (05/15/05).

As a sophomore, he recorded his best fly 75 of 9.57 in March 2004. The speed change from his sophomore to his junior year showed no substantial improvement in time (9.57 to 9.56), and off-season mileage and in-season training were exactly the same. Incidentally, the fastest fly 75 in our program over the past two years has been an 8.53, and that was recorded by our top sprinter.

A performance jump this early is quite substantial. I would have normally waited at least another four or five weeks before attempting a speed trial, but he felt very good. He was also anxious to see if this strength protocol alone could have an impact on his short speed even after just five weeks of training, with no base conditioning or sprint work.

His confidence was based upon how well he was executing his plyos. Historically, my best single-leg bounders have been my fastest sprinters, and his elastic response was quite impressive for someone who seldom races below 1600 meters.

He was very pleased, and felt that this minimal investment in time (the entire strength workout takes less than 45 minutes per session, and most of that is in recovery) had a huge upside.

How strong did he get during the protocol? He topped out at an amazing 340. He hit that in the last week of March, before we moved outside.

 

Despite a pulmonary infection during the outdoor track season, he ran 2:08.87 in the 800 and earned a spot on our state qualifying 4×800 relay. His previous season’s best was 2:18.75.

So, can I draw the conclusion that this approach to strength gain is the best way to help athletes achieve faster speeds?

No. Many factors could have come into play for this impressive success story. Maybe it had something to do with giving our test subject a variation in training from logging all the heavy winter mileage he had done in his previous two years. Maybe it was not having any strength training “bias” from some other strength gain protocol (which I thought was important for this test). Maybe it was the Hawthorne Effect—knowing that he was being filmed and closely observed throughout each day of training. Even the wind that test day might have influenced his performance.

Since that first experiment, I have used Ross’s program with all of my cross country and track athletes. As much as I like the gains that athletes have made over the years in terms of the weight they pulled from the beginning to the end of each season, as with the “Barry Project” itself, so many other variables could have accounted for the speed gains they experienced.

Though I’ve been satisfied that I may be doing something positive for all athletes in the program, I need to answer one overarching question: How does the amount of force produced via heavy strength training relate to the amount of force produced during high speed running?

Disputing the ‘Holy Grail’ of Sprinting

This was the question that Dr. Mike Young, Carl Valle, and Vern Gambetta brought up years ago, and they were right to pose it. Each of them noted that many runners who can pull a lot of weight are not very fast, and many top sprinters are very fast without ever touching a weight

Frans Bosch, whose contemporary insights on strength training have generated considerable interest in the coaching community, said something very similar:

“The strongest athletes are by no means always the fastest sprinters, and evaluation of training always shows that, in somewhat technically complex sports, increased force production does not automatically lead to improved performance.”

There is no disputing what any of them are suggesting. The issue that coaches must acknowledge is something that Bosch often points out: Peak force production in sprinting is larger than what athletes can achieve through maximal voluntary contractions via strength training.

So, how do I respond to the next point that Bosch brings up in his recent book, Strength Training and Coordination: An Integrated Approach?

“If the maximal force that can be produced during strength training is less than what is encountered during high speed running, then strength straining provided no purpose when it comes to overloading.”

If this is the case, how do I explain the impressive gains in speed from my senior distance runner when following the program that Ross carefully outlined?

Bosch seems to have an answer for this.

“Highly trained endurance athletes reach a ceiling in their oxygen uptake. Great mileage will not improve it. However, athletes who wish to increase their V02 max still further can consider maximal strength training as a means of doing so, for improved recruitment will bring more muscles into play.”

When asked about strength work and its relation to the program outlined in his presentation on Critical Velocity Training for distance runners, Tom “Tinman” Schwartz said the following “It’s less important the faster you are.”

I really like that insight because it relates to something Bosch acknowledged in his book: “In beginners, strength training does have a positive impact on some aspects of rate of force development.”

Maybe this has something to do with the simple fact that younger, less-experienced athletes can make big gains through strength training. The more advanced they are in terms of training age and development, the more they need the kind of variation in training that Bosch advocates.

After hearing Bosch speak on two different occasions, and listening to his insights on conventional strength training as a “dead end street,” I have come to understand why he believes that, “overload has to mean more than just ‘more and heavier.’”

Avoid trying to find one set of exercises that contains the secret to running success. Share on X

Perhaps he is right. Coaches might be wise to avoid trying to find that one set of exercises that contains the secret to success. As he notes, “There are no Holy Grails in training.” Ironically, Underground Secrets was the title of Ross’s book and, in an article for Dragon Door, Ross refers to the balance between strength gain and changes in body weight as the “Holy Grail of sprinting.”

Current Views on Strength Training

What I have done in recent years is incorporate some exercises that Bosch believes are “particularly good for standardizing and proving this fundamental cooperation between hamstrings and back muscles.”

I now do some single leg deadlifts, which I call SLEDS, and some bench step-ups. I like his analysis of the hang clean, because it does engage the hamstrings isometrically and, unlike a high pull, has what he refers to as an “outcome and intention.” These do provide training variation, which he believes is the “key to efficient coaching.”

 

Bosch’s book has certainly generated some interest from a training community still somewhat skeptical about such a radical departure from the conventional views on strength training. As Peter Ward noted, “If we have general resistance training for sport on one end of the spectrum… and we have highly specific exercises in the gym that are supposed to get the largest amount of transfer to sports skill on the other end of the spectrum, I would have to say that Bosch is all the way on the highly specific end of the spectrum. I tend to be a more middle-of-the-road type of guy.”

Others offer support for not abandoning these conventional approaches. Jay Dicharry notes that peak forces in running are a product of body mass and running speed. “The faster you go,” he says, “the more strength you need to counter these high forces.”

Steve Magness makes a similar case: “Since we know that force requirement is what determines muscle recruitment, it only makes sense that heavy lifting or high force activities will maximize fiber recruitment.”

Carl Valle commented on one of his blogs that Bosch’s exercises, “seem to only add more complexity to exercises that need less complexity.” But Carl does suggest that coaches buy Bosch’s book and read it for themselves. Challenging his concepts first requires knowing what those concepts are.

Vern Gambetta, who has carefully studied the material, takes a favorable view of Bosch’s insights, and appreciates how they have stimulated his own thought process on the relationship between strength and performance. He noted in his blog that, “My frustration starting with my time as an athlete and extending deep into my coaching career was [not seeing] a commensurate return in performance from the time I invested in strength training. In many respects this is an endless search, but thinking of strength training as coordination training with appropriate resistance is a giant step forward. If nothing else, it will make us more efficient in utilization of time, along with a greater chance of transfer. We need to challenge ourselves in the area of strength training, to break away from conventional wisdom, and seek out new possibilities for improvement. This approach has challenged me.”

So, what conclusion might we draw from the various perspectives that highly respected coaches and trainers have taken on this issue? Perhaps it is to keep an open mind, and experiment for ourselves. As the legendary coach, Joe Vigil, noted in his recent presentation at the Midwest Distance Running Summit, “There are many roads that lead to Rome.”

In terms of how we train our athletes, if we choose the road less traveled, perhaps it will make all the difference in the world.

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. Bosch, Frans. Strength Training and Coordination: An Integrative Approach. Rotterdam: 2010 Publishers, 2015.
2. Dicharry, Jay. Anatomy for Runners: Unlocking Your Athletic Potential for Health, Speed, and Injury Prevention. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2012.
3. Jakalski, Ken. “Progress of Distance Runner,” on Mel Siff’s Supertraining Yahoo Group. January 27, 2006.
4. Magness, Steve. The Science of Running: How to Find Your Limit and Train to Maximize Your Performance. San Rafael: Origin Press, 2014.
5. Ross, Barry. Underground Secrets to Faster Running: Breakthrough Training for Breakaway Running. Raleigh: Lulu Press, 2005.
6. Schwartz , Tom. “Critical Velocity.” Lecture presented at The Running Summit Midwest 2016, Benedictine University, Lisle, Illinois, June 25-26, 2016.
7. Vigil, Joe. “Effective Tapering.” Lecture presented at The Running Summit Midwest 2016, Benedictine University, Lisle, Illinois, June 25-26, 2016.

It’s important for coaches and athletes in high-intensity sports to consider exercises for strength, power, RFD, and impulse when planning a training regimen.

It’s also important to have a guiding philosophy. To begin developing a philosophy, a logical set of questions to ask are:

• What am I trying to do?
• How am I going to do it?
• Why am I doing it this way?

Keep the philosophy simple, so the training plan does not become overly complicated and ineffective.

During any discussion regarding resistance training for sports performance, it’s important to bear in mind the SAID principle (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands). While coaches often use the term, not all think critically about what qualifies as specific and what does not.
We may have a conceptual idea of one method, position, speed, or movement sequence as being specific, but in reality, we may be wrong. Still, it’s important to push the boundaries of thought and strive toward sport specific training. A lot of research shows that the way in which we train has a direct and specific effect on training outcomes.

This is what we mean by specificity:

• How fast or slow we actually lift a load
• How fast or slow we intend to lift a load
• The force vectors in which we direct training loads
• How we move throughout the duration of an exercise
• Eccentric, isometric, and concentric demands
• Joint positions and muscle activation sequences

Because training adaptations are specific, it’s wise to consider both the context of training transfer as well as the need for variation. Avoid getting hooked on one specific exercise or one way of performing an exercise. Instead, use a variety of exercises or exercise subsets that contribute to the sports performance outcome. Use different bars, stances, tempos, and loads to create a holistically developed athlete. Our goal as athletes and coaches is to prepare for sport, not to prepare for a single lift in the weight room.

Use different bars, stances, tempos, and loads to create a holistically developed athlete. Share on X

Terms

Before we dive any deeper, here are terms you ought to know.

• Force: defined as mass multiplied by acceleration. Any time we attempt to move ourselves or an object, we exert some amount of muscular force.
• Strength: the skill and ability to produce force.
• Rate of Force Development (RFD): the rate at which we produce increasing amounts of force during an effort. RFD is measured in Newtons per second.
• Ground Reaction Force (GRF): the exchange of forces that occurs when an object is in contact with the ground. The direction and magnitude of force that goes into the ground and is then exerted back onto the athlete is the GRF.
• Impulse: the application of force over a period of time which causes a change in momentum. Force multiplied by time is equal to its impulse.

As enthusiasts and professionals in the world of sport, we want to develop the high-intensity qualities of strength, power, RFD, and impulse. Why are these factors important?

• Strength is the underlying quality of all movement. An explosive athlete must have a requisite level of strength to be competitive and avoid injury.
• Power is the quality that determines how much work we can do in how little time. Running fast and jumping high require a large amount of work in a small amount of time, and developing power is a logical practice to undertake.
• RFD capabilities allow us to produce more force at an earlier point in a muscle contraction. Our power output is related to RFD because producing more force at an earlier point in time allows us to do more work in less time.
• Impulse directly causes the amount of movement we produce in an explosive action. It can be manipulated by changing either the force exerted or the amount of time in which to exert it. In the blocks, impulse can be adjusted by block placement. If we create a more flexed hip position on the front leg of the blocks, we can push on the front block for a longer time and create a larger impulse and starting velocity upon block clearance.

Knowing these qualities is great, but how do we develop them? As is the case in other areas of life, there are many ways to do this and even more opinions on which are best. It’s important to optimize training by looking at these qualities and determining how they reflect the demands of the athlete’s given sport. Develop programs with these factors in mind.

The following section will give ideas of where to begin and how to structure a training program to develop high-intensity capabilities.

Strength Development

From a programming perspective, building basic levels of strength is not complicated. Until we reach the elite levels of lifting, the basic approach to getting strong is to lift heavy objects with proper form while targeting joint movements and muscle groups that are used in sport. While nearly any challenging lift will make us stronger in some regard, we must always try to get the best bang for our buck.

When selecting exercises for strength development, I prefer movements that activate large amounts of tissue and don’t require the athlete to move around or leave the ground in a very significant way.

For the sake of this article, I’ll refer to these movements as being static. The athlete stays in place while doing the movement and does not leave the ground or move across the ground for the duration of the set.

Why? If we truly challenge ourselves in an exercise such as the squat or deadlift, the load used to produce strength gains should be heavy enough to prevent dynamic movement. From a safety perspective, it’s safer to lift heavy with static movements than to try and overload a dynamic movement.

Useful exercises for strength development:

• Squat Variations: Back squat, front squat, box squat, goblet squat, safety bar squat, cambered bar squat, dumbbell front squat, rear leg elevated split squat, and hex bar squat.
• Deadlift Variations: Straight bar deadlift, hex bar deadlift, block pull, rack pull, and heavy kettlebell deadlift.
• Hip Thrust Variations: Barbell hip thrust, single leg hip thrust, standing band hip thrust, heavy band hip thrust, and heavy band pull through.
• Press Variations: Straight bar bench, floor press, dumbbell bench press, bench with a block, incline bench press, and shoulder press.
• Hyper/Extension Variations: 45-degree hyper, reverse hyper, bent leg hyper, and semi-bent leg hyper.

These exercises recruit large amounts of tissue over various regions of the body. Given that the body responds proportionally to the stress applied, large movements that activate large amounts of tissue will lead to a proportionally large response from the body. This response includes acute and chronic hormonal, structural, and neural changes.

Less experienced and weaker athletes will see improvements with lower intensities, such as lifting 60-70% of their 1-rep maximum with slightly higher rep ranges (such as 5-8 reps). As athletes become stronger and more proficient in their lifting skills, intensities can increase and the reps can decrease, allowing for long-term development through intensification over time.

A 14-year-old kid who weighs 140 pounds doesn’t need to max out to get stronger but a 300-pound rookie in the NFL might. At a certain point in an athlete’s career, it may be wise to shift toward maintaining absolute strength levels. In this case, intensities or volumes of absolute strength work can be reduced to prevent fatigue and risk of injury.

A 140-lb teen doesn't need to max out to get stronger but a 300-lb NFL rookie might. Share on X

Power Development

Developing power should be high on the priority list for athletes who need to run fast, jump high, jump far, or hit hard.

From a physics standpoint, power = work/time. In sports, a more understandable definition is power = force x velocity. Therefore, training for power requires two basic components: large forces and relatively high velocities. Many people instantly think of bar velocity, but we also need to consider limb and whole body velocities when programming for power development.

When programming for power development, coaches should consider limb and whole body velocities. Share on X

As with strength, we want to use exercises that stimulate large amounts of tissue. In contrast to strength development, power development requires exercises that are more dynamic where athletes move through space as they complete a movement. These movements include leaving the ground vertically, translocation horizontally, or otherwise.

While we can develop power with a static lift like a squat or bench press, basing a power development program on static lifts will sell our athletes short in the long run. The same goes for solely using Olympic lifts for maximal strength development; this won’t optimize an athlete’s strength development.

Depending on the individual, loads for power development should be chosen based on their scientifically proven efficacy, their relation to the demands of the athlete’s sport, and the athlete’s level of strength and power development (Stone et al. 2003).

For example, when using the back squat for power development, studies have shown that loads in the 40-60% range produce power outputs similar to loads around 90%. The take-home point is that speed athletes can use the lower loads, while load bearing athletes, such as offensive linemen, can use the higher loads. Both are working in power production zones that are optimized for the demands of their sport.

Useful exercises for power development:

• Olympic Lifts: Power clean, power snatch, hang clean, and mid-thigh clean pull.
• Load the hang cleans at 70-90% to emphasize force characteristics of power (Bevan et al. 2010).
• Load the mid-thigh clean pulls at 40% of 1-RM power clean to emphasize velocity components of power (Comfort et al. 2012).
• Jump Squats
• 42% back squat 1-RM to maximize hip power, 0% to maximize knee and ankle power (Moir et al. 2012).
• Slightly lighter loads emphasize force while slightly heavier loads emphasize velocity.
• Weaker athletes should use loads that are relatively lighter while stronger athletes can use loads which are relatively heavier (Stone et al. 2003).
• Kettlebell swings
• Kettlebell swings from 16kg-32kg and jump squats from 0-60% of 1-RM can outperform back squats in peak power and mean power outputs (Lake, Lauder 2012).
• I prefer to add a band, encouraging a faster eccentric movement and a greater need for creating a large horizontal impulse.
• Squats at either 40-60% or at 90% of 1-RM (Zink et al. 2006).
• Speed athletes can benefit from the 40-60% range due to the same power output at a higher velocity; load bearing athletes, such as a football lineman, will benefit from the 90% load due to their need to express power in a loaded situation.
• Jumps
• Unilateral horizontal drop jump distance is the best predictor of sprint distances up to 20m, except for 5m sprint time which is best predicted by unilateral vertical drop jump rebound height (Schuster, Jones 2016).
• A short-term program of hurdle hops & depth drops increases absolute power, relative power, and maximal pedaling velocity (Chelly et al. 2010).
• Horizontal jump tests have stronger correlations with acceleration performance due to the horizontally oriented force application of sprint acceleration.
• Vertical jump tests correlate to maximal velocity sprint performance, likely due to the vertical nature of force application at top speed.

Rate of Force Development

As an athletic quality, RFD determines how quickly we can produce a given amount of force. Two athletes may be able to apply the same amount of absolute force to an object (such as a bar), but the athlete who reaches that level of force production sooner (for example, at 250ms vs. 500ms) is the more explosive athlete.

Faster athletes will spend less time on the ground compared to slower athletes. Share on X

In a race involving athletes with a range of skill levels, the faster athletes will spend less time on the ground compared to the slower athletes. This is due to their superior RFD capabilities (as well as their ground contact mechanics). Training enhanced RFD can result from shifts in fiber type, changes in muscle-tendon unit stiffness, increased early phase neural drive (50ms into an explosive effort), and changes in muscle fascicle length (Shoenfeld 2016).

When training to enhance RFD, it’s good to start with heavy loads and relatively fast velocities. Also, have the intent to go from zero force production to maximal force production in the shortest time possible. If an athlete lifts in a very controlled manner, they won’t spur much development in their RFD. In fact, they might experience negative effects on their RFD capabilities.

If athletes lift in a very controlled manner, they won’t spur much development in their RFD. Share on X

Useful exercises for training RFD:

• Mid-thigh clean pulls done at 120-140% of 1-RM power clean load (Comfort et al. 2012).
• Mid-thigh hang cleans between 30-90% (Suchomel et al. 2014); some studies report peak numbers at 30%, 60%, and 90%. Keep in mind the demands of each athlete when determining load.
• Sled pulls weighted on the heavier end of the spectrum will have a sprint specific impact on RFD, noted in one study as 20% of body mass (Martínez-Valencia et al. 2015).
• As a side note, heavier sled loads have more effect on early acceleration where force characteristics are more important. Lighter sled loads have a greater impact on late acceleration due to the speed demands of late acceleration.

Impulse

Impulse causes the change in an object’s momentum; for example, when a shot put is launched or when an athlete’s body is projected with each step of an acceleration sprint.

Expressed mathematically as force x time, impulse is influenced by the amount of force produced as well as the time over which that force is exerted. The reason quick athletes with high frequencies during early acceleration are not very fast is that they don’t produce enough impulse. They raise their foot off the ground without applying force for a long enough time period.

Sprint acceleration performance and mean speed over 40m is strongly correlated with horizontal propulsive impulse while vertical propulsive impulse is not. Athletes and coaches in sports that rely on acceleration need to bear this connection in mind because improving horizontal propulsive impulse will likely improve acceleration sprint times.

Improving horizontal propulsive impulse will improve acceleration sprint times. Share on X

Though sparse, there is some research available regarding various exercises and impulse. Horizontal propulsive impulse should be of particular interest to sprint athletes and coaches.

Useful exercises for developing impulse capabilities:

• Sled sprints, depending upon the harness placement.
• Attaching the harness at the waist produces greater net horizontal impulse, net horizontal mean force, propulsive impulse, and propulsive force compared to using a shoulder harness (Bentley et al. 2016).
• 20% body mass loads have greater ground reaction impulse compared to 10% load conditions (Cottle et al. 2014).
• Kettlebell swings produce a greater impulse than back squats and jump squats (Lake, Lauder 2012).
• Hip hinge kettlebell swings can develop horizontal impulses.
• Attaching a band at a certain height can shift the force vector according to preference because the angle of the band influences the force vector throughout the movement.

Conclusion

There are many considerations when it comes to exercise selection for high-intensity training.

Consider force vectors, which are the direction and magnitude in which a load is directed. Does the athlete need to develop axial qualities or anteroposterior qualities?

Consider the demands of an athlete’s sport, and choose relative loads accordingly. If a sprinter produces the same power output using a 40% load and a 90% load, maybe they should stick to the lighter, faster loads.

By optimizing training to the needs of the athlete, time and energy can be directed and utilized in an optimal fashion.

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. Bentley, I., Atkins, S. J., Edmundson, C. J., Metcalfe, J., & Sinclair, J. K. (2016). Impact of Harness Attachment Point on Kinetics and Kinematics During Sled Towing. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(3), 768-776. doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001155
2. Bevan, H. R., Bunce, P. J., Owen, N. J., Bennett, M. A., Cook, C. J., Cunningham, D. J., Newton, R.U., & Kilduff, L. P. (2010). Optimal Loading for the Development of Peak Power Output in Professional Rugby Players.Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(1), 43-47. doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181c63c64
3. Chelly, M. S., Ghenem, M. A., Abid, K., Hermassi, S., Tabka, Z., & Shephard, R. J. (2010). Effects of In-Season Short-Term Plyometric Training Program on Leg Power, Jump- and Sprint Performance of Soccer Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(10), 2670-2676. doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181e2728f
4. Comfort, P., Udall, R., & Jones, P. A. (2012). The Effect of Loading on Kinematic and Kinetic Variables During the Midthigh Clean Pull. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(5), 1208-1214. doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182510827n
5. Contreras, B., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., Beardsley, C., Mcmaster, D. T., Reyneke, J., & Cronin, J. (2016). Effects of a six-week hip thrust versus front squat resistance training program on performance in adolescent males. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, (ahead of print). doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001510
6. Cottle, C. A., Carlson, L. A., & Lawrence, M. A. (2014). Effects of Sled Towing on Sprint Starts. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28(5), 1241-1245. doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000000396
7. Higashihara, A., Ono, T., Kubota, J., Okuwaki, T., & Fukubayashi, T. (2010). Functional differences in the activity of the hamstring muscles with increasing running speed. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(10), 1085-1092. doi:10.1080/02640414.2010.494308
8. Kawamori, N., Rossi, S. J., Justice, B. D., Haff, E. E., Pistilli, E. E., OʼBryant, H. S., Stone, M.H., & Haff, G. G. (2006). Peak Force and Rate of Force Development During Isometric and Dynamic Mid-Thigh Clean Pulls Performed at Various Intensities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3), 483-491.
9. Kawamori, N., Nosaka, K., & Newton, R. U. (2013). Relationships Between Ground Reaction Impulse and Sprint Acceleration Performance in Team Sport Athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(3), 568-573. doi: 10.1519/jsc.0b013e318257805a
10. Lake, J. P., & Lauder, M. A. (2012). Mechanical Demands of Kettlebell Swing Exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(12), 3209-3216. doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e3182474280
11. Makaruk, H., Winchester, J. B., Sadowski, J., Czaplicki, A., & Sacewicz, T. (2011). Effects of Unilateral and Bilateral Plyometric Training on Power and Jumping Ability in Women. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(12), 3311-3318. doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e318215fa33
12. Martínez-Valencia, M. A., Romero-Arenas, S., Elvira, J. L., González-Ravé, J. M., Navarro-Valdivielso, F., & Alcaraz, P. E. (2015). Effects of Sled Towing on Peak Force, the Rate of Force Development and Sprint Performance During the Acceleration Phase. Journal of Human Kinetics, 46(1), 139-148. doi:10.1515/hukin-2015-0042
13. Moir, G. L., Gollie, J. M., Davis, S. E., Guers, J. J., & Witmer, C. A. (2012). The effects of load on system and lower-body joint kinetics during jump squats. Sports Biomechanics, 11(4), 492-506. doi:10.1080/14763141.2012.725426
14. Morin, J., Slawinski, J., Dorel, S., Villareal, E. S., Couturier, A., Samozino, P., Brughelli, M., & Rabita, G. (2015). Acceleration capability in elite sprinters and ground impulse: Push more, brake less? Journal of Biomechanics, 48(12), 3149-3154. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.07.009
15. Schuster, D., & Jones, P. A. (2016). Relationships between unilateral horizontal and vertical drop jumps and 20 m sprint performance. Physical Therapy in Sport, 21, 20-25. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2016.02.007
16. Shoenfeld, B. Rate of Force Development. Accessed July 31, 2016. https://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/rate-of-force-development-rfd/.
17. Speirs, D. E., Bennett, M. A., Finn, C. V., & Turner, A. P. (2016). Unilateral vs. Bilateral Squat Training for Strength, Sprints, and Agility in Academy Rugby Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 30(2), 386-392. doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001096
18. Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H. S., McCoy, L., Coglianese, R., Lehmkuhl, M., & Schilling, B. (2003). Power and Maximum Strength Relationships During Performance of Dynamic and Static Weighted Jumps. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(1), 140-147.
19. Suchomel, T. J., Beckham, G. K., & Wright, G. A. (2014). The impact of load on lower body performance variables during the hang power clean. Sports Biomechanics, 13(1), 87-95. doi:10.1080/14763141.2013.861012
20. Zebis, M. K., Skotte, J., Andersen, C. H., Mortensen, P., Petersen, H. H., Viskær, T. C., Jensen, T.L., Bencke, J., & Andersen, L. L. (2013). Kettlebell swing targets semitendinosus and supine leg curl targets biceps femoris: An EMG study with rehabilitation implications. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(18), 1192-1198. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090281
21. Zink, A. J., Perry, A. C., Robertson, B. L., Roach, K. E., & Signorile, J. F. (2006). Peak Power, Ground Reaction Forces, and Velocity During the Squat Exercise Performed at Different Loads. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20(3), 658-664.

Gluten-free dieting has been all the rage in recent years, with an explosion of self-diagnosed gluten sensitivities sparking an interest in the gluten-free food market. Whether the motivation is soundly based in clinical diagnosis or purely an attempt at weight loss, the relief of common symptoms associated with the sensitivity has been attributed to the removal of gluten from the diet. Unfortunately, the information surrounding this complex molecule is largely misconstrued.

While gluten is often labeled as the culprit, there are other factors that can play a role in this sensitivity present in foods that contain gluten. Adopting a gluten-free diet inadvertently eliminates all of the potential culprits, and therefore provides relief. However, many important nutrients are stripped in the processing of these foods, and are often replaced with not-so-healthy substitutions and additives. The bottom line is that the research surrounding gluten sensitivity has been largely inconclusive and, although much of the media and books surrounding this topic can make a seemingly strong case, there is simply not enough evidence to support the assumptions made against gluten in the diet.

There are several related disorders that can cause nearly identical symptom presentations revolving around the irritation of the bowel. Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder in which antibodies are made against particular proteins of the gluten molecule, resulting in an attack on the intestinal lining each time that gluten-containing foods are ingested. The prevalence of celiac disease is approximately 1% of the population, and can be confirmed with serological diagnostic testing for the causative antibodies. Endoscopic examination can also reveal villous atrophy along the small intestinal lining, as well as crypt hyperplasia, an overgrowth of the lining as a result of inflammation. Both of these presentations result in decreased nutrient absorption and can cause the well-known symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), including bloating, irregular bowel movements, gas, and indigestion (Vazquez-Roque & Oxentenko, 2015).

A second similar reaction of the bowel occurs with a wheat allergy: an allergic reaction to the wheat component of foods, which often accompanies gluten. This is similar to how the body reacts to other food allergies such as peanut or soy, in that IgE antibodies make an acute attack on the “foreign invaders,” with the resulting IBS-like symptoms. Wheat is the most heavily cultivated agricultural product in the world and, with the amplification of turnover rate, increased pest-resistance, and nutrient-depletion of the soil, the structure of the wheat protein has altered over the last few decades. This has changed its macronutrient profile and immunogenic peptides, which may be causing the increasing prevalence of celiac disease and other sensitivities in our population (Fasano, Sapone, Zavallos, & Schuppan, 2015). The prevalence of wheat allergy is known to be quite low, accounting for only 0.1% of Western populations (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012).

The third disorder in this category is termed nonceliac gluten sensitivity, or NCGS. It has become the mainstream self-diagnosed form of IBS, by a largely unwarranted proportion of the general population. NCGS is somewhat ambiguous in scientific literature and clinical settings. It is, in fact, a sensitivity, as the name imparts. It is not a food intolerance, which is an entirely separate physical entity in which digestive enzymes are lacking for the support of proper digestion. As a result of a food intolerance, gut microbiota cause a fermentation of sugar in the colon, and the subsequent symptoms of indigestion follow.

NCGS develops as a result of the body’s innate immune response, which is a first-line defense mechanism against foreign molecules in the body, as opposed to the long-term adaptive immune response that occurs in celiac disease. When a foreign particle is ingested, the body reacts within hours to days with IBS-like symptoms. The good news is that innate immune responses are not long-lasting in the body, so with a short-term elimination diet and then a strategic introduction of the protein, a normal diet may potentially be resumed. However, there is not enough long-term research to confirm this with certainty.

Gluten has been labeled as the causative agent of NCGS; however, other dietary triggers such as fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs), wheat, and amalase-trypsin inhibitors (natural-occurring wheat pesticides) have been implicated as potential suspects (Vazquez-Roque & Oxentenko, 2015). An elimination study was performed where participants with IBS-like symptoms were placed on a FODMAP-reduced diet for two weeks and then exposed to a randomized high-gluten, low-gluten, or no-gluten (control group) diet for one week, in order to delineate whether or not it was gluten or FODMAPs contributing to the symptomology (Vazquez-Roque & Oxentenko, 2015).

Gluten is often labelled the cause of nonceliac gluten sensitivity when FODMAPs are really to blame.

Gastrointestinal symptoms improved in all patients on the FODMAP-reduced diet and no symptoms returned upon exposure to gluten. In the large majority of gluten-free foods on the market, FODMAPs are also eliminated with the processing of gluten, and therefore the relief of symptoms is attributed to being “gluten”-free. Unfortunately, not all of the symptoms may completely disappear, since FODMAPs can appear in other foods. A thorough list of high- and low-FODMAP foods can be found here.

A review by El-Salhy, Hatlebakk, Gilja, & Hausken (2015) reported that, in a study on adults believing they suffered from NCGS, 24% had uncontrolled symptoms even after switching to a strictly gluten-free diet. In another double-blind, randomized study on females with IBS-like abdominal pain, symptoms subsided after the withdrawal of wheat products, not gluten itself (El-Salhy et al., 2015). When gluten-free diets are attempted without dietetic supervision, important nutrients such as fiber, vitamin A, magnesium, iron, and calcium can become deficient without supplementation (El-Salhy et al., 2015).

While gluten-free diets have been suggested for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders, there is no conclusive evidence supporting this claim, and the American Academy of Pediatrics does not support the use of gluten-free diets in these patients (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012). Celebrity endorsements of gluten-free dieting for weight loss have led to the overarching belief that these foods provide a healthier nutritional profile than traditional foods. The only population subset where BMI has improved following a gluten-free diet is in patients with clinically diagnosed celiac disease (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012). However, even in this population, individuals who started in the overweight or obese category actually gained weight as a result of this dietary change, potentially due to the increase in nutrient absorption as a result of the gluten-free diet (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012).

Many gluten-free foods possess higher caloric values and sugar content than their gluten-containing counterparts, and their lack of whole grains and fiber (both of which are inversely related to BMI) may negligibly or negatively impact attempts at weight loss (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012). Moreover, increasing whole-grain wheat intake has been shown to be beneficial for increasing healthy gut bacteria; so, if wheat and gluten can be tolerated, they should not be eliminated on the assumption of it being “healthier” when, in fact, there is no basis for this claim.

In individuals without celiac disease or true NCGS, gluten itself has been shown to improve lipid profiles in individuals with hyperlipidemia, reducing serum triglycerides by 13% after only two weeks of ingesting 60g/day (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012). High levels of wheat fiber and bran did not produce the same beneficial effect when gluten levels were kept the same (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012). Another study demonstrated the positive effect that gluten may have on reducing high blood pressure in affected adults. One of the target proteins of NCGS, gliadin, was reported to inhibit angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE), the common property of many synthetic hypertensive medications on the market (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012).

On another positive note, the immune-boosting potential of gluten has been attributed to the high glutamine content present in the protein (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012). In a study involving patients following surgery, subjects receiving wheat gluten hydrosylate for six days post-operation experienced a significant increase in natural killer cell activity from 6% to 57%. Natural killer cells are important in the monitoring of tumor development and viral infections, the latter of which is of high concern following a surgical operation (Gaesser & Angadi, 2012).

Gluten has some health benefits and shouldn’t be eliminated from a diet without medical guidance. Share on X

True NCGS is a diagnosis of exclusion, after celiac disease and wheat allergy have been ruled out, and only with the elimination test followed by a gluten challenge for symptom recurrence. If no IBS-like symptoms appear with a gluten-free diet, even with the continuation of a FODMAP ingestion, then NCGS can be properly diagnosed and attributed to gluten. Statistics show that roughly 82% of individuals adopting a gluten-free diet do so without first seeking medical advice (Vazquez-Roque & Oxentenko, 2015). This can result in serious negative implications from both a physical and mental health capacity, due to the potential for malnutrition and insufficient adherence without professional medical guidance. Some clinical scientists are considering the possibility that NCGS is celiac disease in its earliest inchoate, clinical form, but much research is yet to be performed in this area. Clearly there are physiological and nutritional benefits to consuming gluten for otherwise healthy individuals, and so it would be negligent to eliminate this powerful protein without first acquiring the medical basis to do so.

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. El-Salhy, M., Hatlebakk, J. G., Gilja, O. H., & Hausken, T. (2015). The relation between celiac disease, nonceliac gluten sensitivity and irritable bowel syndrome. Nutrition Journal, 14(1), 1-8.
2. Fasano, A., Sapone, A., Zevallos, V., & Schuppan, D. (2015). Nonceliac gluten and wheat sensitivity. Gasteroenterology, 148, 1195-1204.
3. Gaesser, G. A. & Angadi, S. S. (2012). Gluten-free diet: Imprudent dietary advice for the general population? Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112, 1330-1333.
4. Vazquez-Roque, M. & Oxentenko, A. S. (2015). Nonceliac gluten sensitivity. Mayo Clinic Proc, 90(9), 1272-1277.

Like many other health professionals, as well as lay people, I used to believe that pain only comes from an injury or is caused by locked joints, joint misalignment, weak or tight muscles, ruptured disks, poor posture, and degenerative changes.

Many people also believe that pain means something is wrong in their body, in the location where they have the pain. This belief is based on what is popularly called the “Cartesian” model of pain, put forward by the philosopher Descartes nearly 350 years ago. Descartes wrote in his book, Treatise of Man: “The flame particle jumps from the fire, touches the toe, moves up the spinal cord until a little bell goes off in the brain and says, ‘Ouch. It hurt.”

This is closely related to what we learn throughout our childhood; namely, that pain always has a clear cause. We bump our toe, and the result is a painful toe. We fall and hurt our knee, and we get pain in our knee. This is a natural response, and it’s a good thing too, because it causes us to protect the injured area and try to avoid hurting it more. It causes us to act, and it promotes healing through rest (1).

This leads people to draw the conclusion that, if they have pain, it is because they have tissue damage in their muscles, tendons, or joints. Unfortunately, this conclusion is sometimes wrong, especially when pain lasts longer than the normal healing time. Both pain and neuroscience research show us that, when you have pain, it has less to do with the actual state of your tissue, and more to do with your brain and nervous system (2).

Pain has more to do with your brain and nervous system than with your muscles, tendons, and joints. Share on X

Quite frankly, pain is not as simple as most people, and even some health professionals, think. Pain is a multifaceted experience that is produced by multiple influences and factors (1). Pain is not simply a sensation caused by an injury, inflammation in the body, or tissue pathology (1).

Injuries often hurt because they activate specific receptors in the body called nociceptors. Nociceptors are specialized neurons that alert us to potentially damaging stimuli; they detect extremes in temperature, pressure, and compounds produced by an injury. A non-technical name for them is danger receptors.

Recent research has shown us that you actually can have pain in the body without anything being wrong in the area of that pain. You can also have “damage” and so called degenerative changes in the body without any pain.

As I see it, there are four possibilities:

• Having tissue damage and pain
• Having no tissue damage and no pain
• Having pain but no tissue damage
• Having tissue damage but no pain

The first two possibilities are the ones that almost everyone takes for granted, while the last two possibilities are often forgotten. However, these last two are very important to keep in mind. If you have pain for three to six months, it is usually classified as chronic pain. This type of pain often has more to do with your brain and nervous system than with the actual condition of the tissue.

In this article, we will look into the last possibility—having tissue damage without pain. There are many people who walk around with knee, back, or shoulder pain that drastically limits their ability to be active or live a normal life. Interestingly, there are also many people who have some significant “damage” in their body, also known as degenerative changes, but without any symptoms or pain.

Some examples from research include:

• Researchers looking at the MRIs of participants’ lumbar spine area found that 80% of the participants without any symptoms or pain could be diagnosed with one mild disc protrusion or a disc herniation in the lumbar spine, and 38% of participants had two or more of these degenerative changes (3).
• MRIs taken of the shoulders of participants who had neither symptoms nor pain showed that 34% of them had rotator cuff tears. This increased to 54% when researchers only looked at people above 60 years old (4).
• Researchers found that 37% of patients in an emergency clinic (that were alert, rational, and coherent) did not feel pain at the time of their injury. Most of these patients reported pain within an hour of injury, but some patients reported delays of as long as nine hours or even more. In patients with lacerations, cuts, abrasions, and burns, 53% had a period of time without pain and, even in the group of patients with fractures, sprains, bruises, amputation of a finger, stab wounds, and crushes, 28% went through a period without pain (5).
• Of a group of participants in another study, 20% to 57% had different types of degenerative changes, like disc herniation or spinal stenosis, varying by age. The incidence was also shown to increase with age (6).
• In a study of people with clinical symptoms of knee osteoarthritis, 76% were found to have meniscal tears without any symptoms or pain (7).
• In a new systematic review of spinal degradation, the researchers determined that degenerative changes could be viewed as a normal part of aging, and that they are common in individuals without pain (8).
• When the shoulders of subjects in one study were imaged by ultrasound, researchers found “abnormalities” in 96% of them; again without any symptoms or pain (9).
• In an editorial published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, a professor of sport medicine stated that degenerative meniscus tears (in the knee) should be looked upon as “wrinkles with age” (10).
• A cross-sectional study of MRIs done on the cervical spines of 1,211 participants ages 20-70 found that 87.6% of them had a bulging disc. For participants in their 20s, 73.3% of the males and 78.0% of the females had bulging discs; again without any pain (11).

If we look closer at the data from the “Systematic Literature Review of Imaging Features of Spinal Degeneration in Asymptomatic Populations” (8), it shows that 60% of the people that are 40 years old have disc degeneration, 50% have a bulging disc, 33% have disc protrusions, 18% have facet degeneration, and 8% have spondylolisthesis. However, none of them have symptoms or pain.

The incidence increases dramatically when we look at data for people 80 years old. Here, the data shows that 96% have disc degeneration, 84% have a bulging disc, 43% have disc protrusions, 83% have facet degeneration, and 50% have spondylolisthesis. Still, none of this group has symptoms or pain.

All of the participants and patients in the studies I highlighted earlier—with the exception of the paper on patients in the emergency clinic (5) —had all sorts of things “wrong” in their body, but none of them felt pain.

How can that be? Why does your uncle’s shoulder hurt when his rotator cuff is torn, while people in these studies had no pain? And why do you get back pain when working in the garden, while all of these people can have degenerative changes without feeling any pain? What about the old man who has arthritis in both knees, but only the left one hurts? The answer is that pain is nowhere near as simple as we believe.

A wide range of scientific studies show the concept of pain is not as simple as we believe. Share on X

What does modern pain research say about pain, and what can we learn from the last 30 years of research on the experience of pain? A statement made by world-leading pain researcher, Professor Lorimer Moseley, serves as a gateway to this new research. Moseley is a professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Chair in Physiotherapy, School of Health Sciences at the University of South Australia, and is at the forefront of pain research. His numerous scientific studies have extensively increased our understanding of what pain is, and what it is not. Moseley said that, “pain is an unpleasant conscious experience that emerges from the brain when the sum of all the available information suggests that you need to protect a particular part of your body.”

Pain is, therefore, the sum of your environmental context (i.e., a calm or stressed environment; a battlefield, hospital, home), the degree of danger signal (nociception), your beliefs, your expectations, and your past experiences, as well as many other factors. You will experience pain only when your body perceives a large-enough threat in relation to the context (12,13). In layman’s terms, you could reconceptualize pain as the body’s alarm system, which reacts to threat, danger, and injury. The alarm (pain) is often activated when we get an injury, but the alarm system is highly intelligent and has the ability to warn us before we get an injury, thereby increasing the probability that we avoid the injury.

The legendary Danish doctor and anatomy professor, Dr. Finn Bojsen-Møller, stated: “It is fundamental to the body’s self-protection ability that pain begins before reaching the breaking point. Without the painful experience, there is no possibility of keeping the body and tissue intact and whole (14).”

This scientific research, and its implications, are both good news and bad news. The good news is that, through advances in pain science research, we have a much more complete understanding of what pain is. The bad news that emerges from this research, however, is that pain is a complex experience influenced by multiple factors. This means that there are no quick fixes to the complex problem that is pain, and this is a big challenge for the health professionals who are trying to sell quick fixes. But it also gives hope for new advances in pain treatments that integrate the complexity and multifactorial nature of pain.

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. Melzack R, Katz J. Pain. WIREs Cogn Sci. 2013; 4(1):1-15.
2. Moseley GL. Reconceptualising pain according to modern pain science. Physical Therapy Reviews. 2007; 12(3):169-178.
3. Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, Modic MT, Malkasian D, Ross JS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994 Jul 14; 331(2):69-73X.
4. Sher JS et al. Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of asymptomatic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jan; 77(1):10-5.
5. Melzack R, Wall PD, Ty TC. Acute pain in an emergency clinic: latency of onset and descriptor patterns related to different injuries. Pain. 1982 Sep; 14(1):33-43.
6. Boden SD, Davis DO, Dina TS, Patronas NJ, Wiesel SW. Abnormal magnetic-resonance scans of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic subjects. A prospective investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Mar; 72(3):403-8.
7. Bhattacharyya T, Gale D, Dewire P, Totterman S, Gale ME, McLaughlin S, Einhorn TA, Felson DT. The clinical importance of meniscal tears demonstrated by magnetic resonance imaging in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jan; 85-A(1):4-9.
8. Brinjikji W, Luetmer PH, Comstock B, Bresnahan BW, Chen LE, Deyo RA, Halabi S, Turner JA, Avins AL, James K, et al. Systematic Literature Review of Imaging Features of Spinal Degeneration in Asymptomatic Populations. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Nov 27. [Epub ahead of print].
9. Girish G, Lobo LG, Jacobson JA, Morag Y, Miller B, Jamadar DA. Ultrasound of the shoulder: asymptomatic findings in men. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Oct; 197(4):W713-9.
10. Risberg MA. Degenerative meniscus tears should be looked upon as wrinkles with age–and should be treated accordingly. Br J Sports Med. 2014 May; 48(9):741.
11. Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Suda K, Yamagata M, Ueta T, Kato F. Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of the cervical spines in 1211 asymptomatic subjects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Mar 15; 40(6):392-8.
12. Moseley GL. A pain neuromatrix approach to patients with chronic pain. Man Ther. 2003 Aug; 8(3):130-40.
13. Legrain V, Iannetti GD, Plaghki L, Mouraux A. The pain matrix reloaded: a salience detection system for the body. Prog Neurobiol. 2011 Jan; 93(1):111-24. Epub 2010 Oct 30.
14. Bojsen-Møller, F. 2001. Bevægeapparatets anatomi. 12th ed., Denmark: Munksgaard.

The mini-hurdle run not only allows coaches to work on perfect timing but also lets us work on lateral strength. Both are attributes that every fast, efficient, and injury-free runner displays.

The push runner who has an extended leg in back and low knee drive often shares the same characteristics of a runner with a crossover gait. Dr. Shawn Allen, of The Gait Guys, and I began investigating this concept years ago. We watched film clip after film clip of runners from a side angle, trying to determine how we could not only prevent injuries but also help athletes run faster.

During this time, one of Dr. Allen’s clients, who had chronic hip and knee pain, was featured running in a local advertisement. We looked at the YouTube clip, where the camera angle was from the front, and quickly discovered the runner had a crossover gait. We watched as she took three strides down the line on the side of a country road. Each stride crossed over the line and landed on the wrong side of her body. Sirens wailed, lights flashed, and the world changed.

Top sprinters land their feet directly under their hips. Share on X

We started filming as many runners as possible from the front and breaking down the filmed movements. Dr. Allen had the ability to test muscles to match the runner’s gait, which enabled us to deduce the problem. We searched for other research on the issue and found very little. So we started to play. YouTube was helpful to watch top sprinters run. Each runner landed their foot directly under their hip. The slower the athlete, the more the hip drifted toward the middle. This was consistent with both distance runners and sprinters. Like a thermometer, we could identify the problem. We wanted to become a thermostat so we could change things.

The Problematic Crossover Gait Motor Pattern: Part 1

The Problematic Crossover Gait Motor Pattern: Part 2

Since we understood that crossing over caused problems, we decided to design exercises to improve the pattern and change running form. We played with basic side planks. However, they did not build the strength necessary to hold the hip in place as a runner’s body weight, doubled, crashes down when the leg hits the ground. Hip hikes on a Swiss ball were an improvement because the foot is in contact with the ground. But they still lacked the appropriate force.

Next, I painted a line down my very long driveway and had my athletes run down the line, focusing on where their foot placement occurred. Sure enough, the athletes felt the stress on their hips. To help them space out their stride and force them to focus on raising their knees up, I placed 6-inch mini hurdles at 1.5 and 1.7m intervals and told them to run through. I could see them start to improve.

After this revelation, I watched Frans Bosch’s Running DVD again. He talked about foot placement relative to the hips. To further stress the hip, Bosch suggested runners fully extend their arms over their heads. We tried it, and it worked.

At this point, using my old school American strength coach mentality, I figured if I added weight, the results would be better. I found myself at a junkyard looking for weighted poles. I found 10, 20, 30, and 35-lb iron bars and had my athletes run with the 10-lb bars raised over their heads. And it worked. I observed noticeable differences in my athletes.

I do not add more than 10 pounds to a runner’s program for quite some time. I look for quickness off the ground first. Then I start to spread out the distance to 1.7m and 1.9m. When the athletes look good at 1.9m, I allow them to add weight. My fastest runners can handle heavier weight.

To add even more stress to the lateral sling, I put pieces of track, approximately ¼ to ½-inch, between the hurdles. This creates additional stress when hitting the ground. When we add speed through the hurdles and short distances between the hurdles, we create a challenging environment.

Keep in mind that this is a progression. A coach can wreck an athlete if they jump to the coolest exercise too soon. Patience is the key.

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

When Keni Harrison set the new World Record (WR) for 100m hurdles with a time of 12.20 in July 2016, she erased the 28-year-old record of 12.21 set by Bulgaria’s Yordanka Donkova.

How did Harrison manage to beat Donkova’s time? To find the answer, I dug into the archives of rare and/or unpublished data from Bulgarian studies, and I used my high-speed cameras to capture the world’s best hurdlers.

When Harrison crossed the finish line, the time displayed on the screen was 12.58. But for spectators, Harrison seemed too fast and the rest of the field too far behind for this time to be true.

Yes, Harrison ran 12.20 and no, she did not lean under the photocells. To be exact, Harrison’s time was 12.194. Why did the time 12.58 appear first? There’s a bug in the timing system.

Before analyzing Harrison’s race, I’ll explain how the timing works.

The Timing Bug

OMEGA uses two pairs of photoelectric cells on the finish line so that a time can be shown instantly. Actually reading and interpreting the photo finish takes additional seconds, sometimes minutes. In one case it took years: Donkova’s 12.35 WR in Cologne in 1986 was submitted as 12.34 to the IAAF for ratification, but a closer examination of the photo finish showed 12.35.

One pair of cells is placed 1.10m high from the ground, the second at 1.25m. To stop the clock and to prevent false times (caused by such things as a runner’s hand or a flying animal), both cells must detect movement. This time appears on the stadium board and TV screens. In Harrison’s WR race in London, the clock showed 12.58, which turned out to be the time for the second finisher, Brianna Rollins.

Did Harrison lean too low and go below the radar? No, it’s unlikely, unless a runner dives over the finish line. This did happen recently during the Rio Olympics when Shaunae Miller dived across the finish line in the 400m race. The timing bug also occurred in this race. The screen displayed Miller’s time as 49.51, but the photo finish showed Miller ran 49.44, and Allyson Felix got 49.51.

Miller’s finish followed Kumari Taki’s dive to win the 5000m final at 2016 World U20 Championships:

Kumari Taki 🇰🇪 wins U20 1500 lm world title with style #Bydgoszcz2016 #photofinish pic.twitter.com/EONqqPdCoe

— PJ Vazel (@pjvazel) July 22, 2016

Harrison’s World Record Finish

This photo sequence shows Harrison’s finish:

Figure 1A. Harrison closes to the finish line and the two pairs of cells (black circles on the finish line).

Figure 1B. Harrison’s head meets the upper cell, as indicated by the small red light signal.

Figure 1C. Harrison’s torso meets the lower cell, but there’s too much delay between the two events, and the system doesn’t recognize her as the same object so the clock does not stop.

Figure 2A. The second runner, Rollins, closes to the finish line while the clock is still running.

Figure 2B. Rollins’ body (and possibly Kristi Castlin’s head) meets both cells virtually at the same time, as seen by the small red lights, and she stops the clock at 12.58. After reading the photo finish, Rollins’ time must have been between 12.561 and 12.570 to be attributed an official time of 12.57, according to IAAF rules. OMEGA has released Harrison’s unofficial time to the thousandth: 12.194.

The World Record Race

I combined the data from Bulgarian records with footage of Harrison’s race from videos showing various points of view: three high-speed and four normal speed cameras; two front planes; four panoramic sagittal planes at the start, middle and finish of the race; and one traveling sagittal plane. During the 12.20 race, I recorded times for each interval (8.50m between obstacles) taken at the time of contact of each landing after a hurdle.

2.49, 3.49, 4.45, 5.40, 6.33, 7.27, 8.21, 9.15, 10.11, 11.10

After a 0.149 reaction time, Harrison led the race, passing the 10m mark in 1.98, which the best sprinters achieve during world class 100m finals. I don’t have Donkova’s 10m time for her 12.21 WR, but for her 12.29 WR in 1986, she did 2.01.

Because Harrison didn’t land her leading foot close to the hurdle, her time at the first hurdle is not the fastest ever recorded. Cornelia Oschkenat was timed by Dr. Miskos (Athletics Laboratory UV CSTV, Prague) at 2.47 at the first hurdle during her semifinal at the 1987 World Championships and in 2.48 for 60m hurdles at the European Athletics Indoor Championships (European Indoor) and 7.77 in 1988.

During her career, Donkova tried to use 7 steps to the first hurdle instead of the traditional 8 and managed to decrease her time at the first hurdle touchdown. But then her times slowed down in the race’s first couple of intervals. Since her acceleration pattern suffered, she stuck with the 8-step approach.

It’s interesting to note that the 7-step has been tried for a long time; the first woman under 13 sec. electric time, Chi Cheng, 12.93 in 1970, used 7 steps. But, the 7-step has never really clinched for female hurdlers, unlike their male counterparts. From the start line to the first hurdle, the 13m distance is a closer match to women’s usual sprinting acceleration pattern as opposed to men’s who have a 13.72m distance.

The unit analysis shows that Harrison reached her top speed between the 5th and 6th hurdle, after about 6 sec, similar to normal times recorded for 100m dash sprinters.

1.00, 0.96, 0.95, 0.93, 0.94, 0.94, 0.94, 0.96, 0.99

Donkova’s 12.21 race is yet to be seen on video. The race that’s available on YouTube titled Women’s 100m Hurdles World Record is not the 12.21 race on August 20, 1988, in Stara Zagora. It’s been said the racers ran in the opposite direction to take advantage of the wind. And, as strange as it sounds, only four women were competing. One did not finish and the second place winner was timed at 14.74.

Donkova, then, won by a 2.53 margin. Her touchdown times have never been published outside Bulgaria, and I’m happy to share them:

2.50, 3.47, 4.42, 5.34, 6.24, 7.19, 8.16, 9.14, 10.11, 11.14

0.97, 0.95, 0.92, 0.90, 0.95, 0.97, 0.98, 0.97, 1.03

Note: These times should be taken with a grain of salt because it’s very unusual for an athlete to lose 0.05 from one interval to another, and the 0.90 unit is dodgy.

Excluding Donkova’s possibly not-so-accurate intervals, 0.94 is the fastest unit I’ve found for her, and 0.93 is the fastest unit I know of during 100m hurdles. A 0.94 interval is quick enough to run 12.20, according to the models published in East Germany and the Soviet Union as well as my own recent models using the latest analysis.

A compilation of the all-time best interval units shows that Harrison achieved an outstanding top speed.

• 1-2H 0.97 Lolo Jones (7.72 Doha WI ’10)
• 2-3H 0.95 Gail Devers (12.46 Stuttgart WC ’93), 0.95 Keni Harrison (12.24 Eugene ’16)
• 3-4H 0.93 Lyudmila Narozhilenko (7.68 San Sebastian ’93), Lolo Jones (7.72 Doha WI ’10)
• 4-5H 0.93 Keni Harrison (12.20 London ’16)
• 5-6H 0.93 Brianna Rollins (12.34 Eugene NC ’16)
• 6-7H 0.94 Several women
• 7-8H 0.94 Gloria Uibel (12.44 Roma WC ’87), Keni Harrison (12.20 London ’16)
• 8-9H 0.95 Brianna Rollins (12.26 Des Moines NC ’13)
• 9-10H 0.97 Ginka Zagorcheva (12.34 Roma WC ’87)

To determine a theoretical time for a perfect 100m hurdles race, I added the total of these best world times to the 2.47 approach by Oschkenat and the 0.98 time between the touchdown at last hurdle and the finish line by Devers at 1993 World Championship.

The result is 11.96 for the perfect 100m hurdles. Of course, this is hypothetical because it doesn’t take into account energy distribution.

The perfect time, hypothetically, for 100m hurdles is 11.96. Share on X

Hurdling Technique

It’s a persistent myth that hurdle clearance time is the most important factor in competition results. At the 1991 World Championships, Japanese bio-mechanicians recorded participants’ flight times over the hurdles and run times between hurdles. The results showed that run times have a higher correlation with the final time.

Run times between hurdles, not clearance times, have a higher correlation with final time. Share on X

Yet total run times are not Harrison’s strong suit. Adding in her 9 interval runs without taking into account her hurdle clearance time, her 6.14 is not among the best ever.

Former World Champions Narozhilenko (12.28) and Devers (12.37) and African record holder Glory Alozie (12.44) have sub-6 sec totals.

Harrison’s total hurdle clearance times, 2.76 for 10 hurdles, is among the best. The 1982 European champion, Lucyna Kalek (12.44), and Ginnie Powell (12.45) have a 2.74, and Cindy Billaud did 2.75 for her French record (12.56).

Harrison maintained her shortest hurdle clearance time of 0.27 almost all through the race, while several other women might have hit 0.25 or 0.26, as recorded at 1991 World Championships, but failed to maintain this rhythm.

Donkova, who was a sharp technician, achieved a personal best hurdle clearance of only 0.28 during her 12.21 WR. This is not where she improved over the years. In 1980, she had a 0.31 clearance when she was a 13.24 hurdler while she decreased her run time from 0.73 to 0.64.

It turns out, Harrison has the best combination of all hurdlers.

Of all hurdlers, Keni Harrison has the best combination of flight times and run times. Share on X

The first step after the hurdle is important since that’s where the hurdler accelerates after losing speed from the takeoff in front of the obstacle. The runner also loses velocity during each foot contact so foot contact should be as short as possible.

This is where Donkova excelled with the best times, especially during takeoff, when her contact times were as short as 0.09. She was even timed at 0.083 before the 8th hurdle during the 12.21 WR.

Harrison’s takeoff time is slightly over 0.100 but, at touchdown after the hurdle, she is faster than Donkova at 0.08 vs. 0.083. Only Sally Pearson (12.28 for her 2011 World title) has done better.

Harrison deviates from the model with long air time after the first step. This could explain why, by the third step, she sometimes gets too close to the hurdles. From the front-plane view, you can see that she does side steps. She’s actually running more than 100m.

Training

To achieve 0.93 units in competition, hurdlers work on time or the corresponding speed, 9.14 m/s, by using shorter distances between the hurdles. Harrison has hit 0.92 with 8.25m distance, which is 8.96 m/s, according to her coach, Edrick Floreal. At warm-up before her WR, Harrison used much shorter 7.50m intervals and had best interval times of 0.82-0.83, which is 9.14-9.04 m/s.

Interestingly, Donkova didn’t use distances shorter than 8.10 because her coach believed it would create a different rhythm pattern. They favored 8.15-8.50m intervals.

In August 1988, just days before the 12.21 WR, Donkova ran a significant training workout of 110m with 12 hurdles and 11 intervals at 8.30m distance. The first 5 intervals were run at an average 0.928, exactly as she did during the 12.21 competition, and the remaining 6 in 0.95, demonstrating great top speed and endurance speed.

Flat Speed

The annual progression of the two best hurdlers shows that the differential between 100m hurdle and 100m times, often referred as technical index, improves steeply in their first years and then stagnates.

Keep in mind that their peak 100m times are underestimated because they ran too few races to accurately display their actual potential.

In May 2016, Harrison ran a 100m in 11.35 (0.7), and she called this a bad race. In a properly executed performance, she should be able to run 0.2 faster.

This would be better than Donkova, whose 11.27 personal best (PB) was set in 1982 (0.5) a week after setting the World Leader with 12.44. She must have run faster in the following years if the wind had not been negative for the few occasions she lined up: -1.2 for 11.42 in 1983, -1.2 for 11.44 in 1986, -3.0 for 11.44 in 1987.

Based on Donkova’s best training handheld times, probably achieved in advantageous conditions (wind and altitude), I’ve estimated the corresponding electric times (by adding 0.60):

• 30m 4.16 (100m projection time according to my model: 10.96)
• 60m 7.00 (100m projection: 10.90)
• 100m 10.98

She was probably worth around 11.10 if we also consider her anchor leg times in relays:

• 1987: 10.23 European Cup (fastest of the field, times in the open 100m/anchor relay leg: Marlies Göhr 10.95/10.37, Ewa Kasprzyk 11.45/10.50)
• 1988: 10.26 Olympic Games (Evelyn Ashford 10.83/10.06, Göhr 10.99/10.26, Patricia Girard 11.65/10.48)

Donkova’s step length at her top speed measured during relay races remained similar from 1982 to 1988 (2m22), and her top speed only had marginal gains. Improvement of high-step frequency, especially by decreasing the contact times during the run between hurdles, were her technical trend until 1988.

Can Harrison Capture the World Indoor Record?

Donkova’s indoor 60m hurdles best was 7.74, a WR in 1987.

If Harrison can duplicate her shape next winter, she should be able to run much faster than Donkova’s time, and Sanna Kallur’s current World Indoor Record of 7.68 held since 2008 will be in danger. Harrison will also probably erase Narozhilenko’s 7.63 unratified record due to her 1993 doping offense.

Harrison’s time at 60m was 7.65 (high-speed camera placed at 60m), but theoretically, she could run faster since she had 6 hurdles instead of 5. This winter, she set her PB at 7.77 after a 5th hurdle touchdown of 6.48. Her 1.29 run-in time added to her 6.33 would give her 7.62.

I now expect she’ll have a faster finish.

Author’s Acknowledgments

Special thanks to my friend Daniela who helped me translate Bulgarian material more than a decade ago during endless afternoons. Credits to statistician Aleksandar Vangelov who provided early performance data for Donkova. And I’m grateful to Pr Apostol Slavchev for helping me with documentation for my research.

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

To improve power in the weight room, training hard and heavy comes with a price. Strength training is about breaking down and building up, and athletes can only leverage training adaptations when they maximize recovery. The ideal program strains only the areas that need, and can, adapt to the imposed demands. A shirt that adds appropriate shielding and provides the most comfort makes sense for athletes trying to achieve their best in the weight room and on the field.

Maximal squats, heavy cleans, and explosive jumps with a barbell create collateral damage that does not contribute to building strength. Many athletes and coaches perceive common joint, muscle, and tendon soreness as a cost of doing business.

There’s a big difference, however, between normal soreness and damage to untargeted tissue which may lead to permanent problems.

Even if acute or chronic injury doesn’t occur from heavy training, excessive soreness and pain limit the results of any properly designed strength program. For greater results, the winning formula is to push harder and recover more completely.

Common problem areas for athletes who train hard, even if they have great technique, are the following:

• The Upper Spine: Not everyone’s anatomical structure receives a barbell well on their upper posterior neck. For most athletes, this area isn’t naturally padded by muscle. Even if it is, muscle will always lose to heavy steel. The Apollo SS training shirt solves this problem by covering exposed areas and increasing comfort with state of the art padding.
• Clavicles and Sternum: Front squats, push presses, and heavy cleans place a lot of pressure on the collarbone and breastbone, which are not designed to handle impact forces. The shirt’s built-in high impact pads cover this area precisely for those needing a little assistance with the lifts.
• Anterior Shoulder Area: No matter what grip one uses, racking and reracking a bar on the shoulders can be tough for athletes who don’t have muscular development in this area. Exposed bone can spell discomfort to any athlete, not only those who are smaller in the upper body.
• Nerves, Upper Back, and Shoulders: Some mystery exists in the current science about sensory and motor nerves. Some athletes are highly sensitive and have discomfort in the upper back and shoulders. To eliminate any potential problem, the shirt covers these areas to protect the athlete.
• Trapezius and Other Muscle Groups: Over time, a heavy barbell can wear down other muscle groups in the upper torso. The shirt supports these areas to relieve the muscles and enables coaches to train their athletes harder in the next session.

Discomfort and pain are not caused by imperfect barbell technique; they result from a limit to the design of the human body. Some of the most skilled athletes in international weightlifting and powerlifting wear the Apollo SS shirt.

Pain is not caused by imperfect barbell technique; it results from the human body’s design limits. Share on X

We’ve also seen great results with collision sport athletes who simply need a way to calm the blows of their sport to train effectively. The physical toll of heavy training adds up; many coaches and athletes don’t realize how much recovery time they need to handle the wear and tear of competing, practicing, and training.

When Toughness is Disguised as Macho Foolishness

Some coaches believe a heavy bar crashing or pressing against the body is a sign, or part of, building toughness. We agree that heavy barbells can challenge and teach athletes valuable lessons. Discomfort, however, should come from hard conditioning and not banging up joints and tendons.

NFL coaches and science teams now work together to find the optimal load for hitting and contact using systems like Catapult and other tracking tools. It’s time to direct this attitude to the weight room.

We designed the Apollo SS to protect the areas of the body affected by intense barbell training. We love sensors and tools that measure workouts, but there are not enough solutions available to actually improve high-intensity training. Skin Tech™ is currently protecting players in the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, and athletes in both the summer and winter Olympics.

Some athletes roll up towels or use bulky barbell padding, but the experience leaves them frustrated with subpar results. Consider the hypocrisy: specialized bars have massive padding and nearly every leg machine has cushioning for the shoulders. We don’t favor plush spa athlete experiences; we just know that optimal comfort leads to harder efforts and less wear and tear.

For us, toughness is challenging the willpower to push harder. Toughness is not dealing with discomfort or pain; these don’t contribute to physiological improvements in the body. Athletes in contact games like rugby and American football experience enough impact. We want the focus in the weight room to be on building up, not piling on additional pain and trauma.

The Measurable Difference of Training with the Apollo SS Shirt

Recovery from training is a complex process. We’ve done our homework with the science and taken into account the practical considerations of training with correct weight room ergonomics.

Coaches and athletes always ask about a product’s real-world benefits. So what’s it worth? We did some of our own research and looked at the price of impact on athletes playing contact sports. We saw a pattern.

We found that the more impact or loading experienced by an athlete, the longer the recovery needed, all else being equal. There’s a difference between muscle recovery and joint inflammation.

There’s a difference between muscle recovery and joint inflammation. Share on X

The training process breaks down muscle tissue and builds it back up. This is necessary. Soreness is expected and may occur with heavy training. But lingering and excessive joint pain or inflammation only decelerate body recovery. Major pain or discomfort that sabotages sleep and prevents training is unacceptable.

When reporting their willingness to train, athletes are influenced by their physical and training fatigue. We’ve found that willingness specifically to lift heavy with a barbell on the body may not show up with subjective questionnaires, coach and athlete communication, or athlete self-reporting. Not because athletes aren’t motivated to lift heavy or train, but because most athletes don’t look forward to soreness and unproductive pain.

Everyone has a limit, whether physical or mental. We know that even tough athletes who pride themselves on the “no pain no gain” philosophy still benefit from wearing our shirt because it allows them to go harder.

We can care for the majority of athletes that simply use weight training as a means to an end and are willing to go hard provided that reasonable comfort exists when a steel bar goes to the body.

Skin Tech™ innovation adds the ability to safely maximize every athlete’s potential and provides support so recovery is deeper and intensified.

Proprietary Technology and Patent-Pending Design

Skin Tech^™ assembled the utopian training shirt by combining the current leading technologies in both the sport and the protection industries. Every possible function an athlete needs is provided with the most comfortable training shirt on the market.

The Apollo SS delivers the best shielding system to exposed anatomical areas while being ultra-light and incredibly cool. The shirt provides individual, geometric pattern XRD^® Protection foam armor that withstands 90% of the impact from ballistic lifts. It’s resilient to crush loads, has no skin irritants, and is laundry safe. The fabric is designed to allow for ease of motion in any training environment and is built to last.

Skin Tech offers the Apollo SS shirt for both men and women of all ages and sizes. In addition to an array of sizes for different athletes, the shirts can be customized with logos if teams and companies want to promote their brand uniquely.

The Apollo SS was designed to protect muscle, bone, and the nerves. The padding is a mere 6.35 millimeters thick but is able to handle high-velocity and high-load weight training shocks. The geometric patterns are strategically placed for key target areas for both power lifts and Olympic weightlifting. The precise spacing of the patterns allows for a smooth glide to preserve natural motion. In addition to barbell loading, athletes using other weighted instruments like kettlebells and medicine balls will benefit from the shirt’s design.

The Apollo SS uses XRD^® Technology, the leading impact absorption material in the industry. The material boasts an impressive tensile and tear strength index and is rugged enough to handle extreme conditions such as high-speed sports and life-saving professions. The material is surprisingly soft and flexible but is resilient to handle even the most demanding training sessions.

The shirt is cool, breathable, antimicrobial, and designed to resist odors and stains. The reinforced TopCover shield provides added support around the chest and back to reduce muscle fatigue and pressure. The high impact material creates a natural and subtle gap between fabric layers to help release body heat during training. Unlike other protective shirts, the feel is natural and doesn’t irritate the skin. We designed and tested the Apollo SS to be the most comfortable training shirt on the market.

What to Expect and Getting Started

When athletes put on the Apollo SS, they immediately feel the difference. The shirt is ultra-light and feels like a second skin. The high-tech armor covers the areas that need a little more support. The cut is athletic, form fitting, and designed for a personalized experience. Teams can customize their shirts with logos or ship same day if they just want the core essentials. If you have any questions or want guidance on sizing and large orders, visit skintechfit.com and give us a call or email me at [email protected].

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

Sport Science References

1. Ascensa ̃o, A, Rebelo, A, Oliveira, E, Marques, F, Pereira, L, and Magalha ̃es, J. Biochemical impact of a soccer—Analysis of oxidative stress and muscle damage markers throughout recovery. Clin Biochem 41: 841–851, 2008.
2. Brancaccio, P, Maffiuletti, NA, and Limongelli, FM. Creatine kinase monitoring in sport medicine. Br Med Bull 81–82: 209–230, 2007.
3. Cadore, E, Lhullier, F, Brentano, M, Silva, E, Ambrosini, M, Spinelli, R, Silva, R, and Kruel, L. Correlations between serum and salivary hormonal concentrations in response to resistance exercise. J Sports Sci 26: 1–6, 2008.
4. Clarkson, PM, Nosaka, K, and Braun, B. Muscle function after exercise-induced muscle damage and rapid adaptation. Med Sci Sport Exerc 24: 512–520, 1992.
5. Cormack, SJ, Newton, RU, and McGuigan, MR. Neuromuscular and endocrine responses of elite players to an Australian Rules football match. Int J Sports Phys Perf 3: 359–374, 2008.
6. Coutts, A and Duffield, R. Validity and reliability of GPS devices for measuring movement demands of team sports. J Sci Med Sport 11: 500–509, 2008.
7. Coutts A, Reaburn P, Piva TJ, and Murphy A. Changes in Selected Biochemical, Muscular Strength, Power, and Endurance Measures during Deliberate Overreaching and Tapering in Rugby League Players. Int J Sports Med 28: 116–124, 2007.
8. Elloumi, M, Maso, F, Michaux, O, Robert, A, and Lac, G. Behaviour of saliva cortisol [C], testosterone [T] and the T/C ratio during a rugby match and during the post competition recovery days. Eur J Appl Physiol 90: 23–28, 2003.
9. Gill, ND, Beaven, CM, and Cook, C. Effectiveness of post-match recovery strategies in rugby players. Br J Sports Med 40: 260–263, 2006.
10. Hatanaka, E, Furlaneto, CJ, Ribeiro, FP, Souza, GM, and Campa, A. Serum amyloid A-induced MRNA expression and release of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) in human neutrophils. Immunol Lett 91: 33–37, 2004.
11. Hartmann, U and Mester, J. Training and overtraining markers in selected sport events. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32: 209–215, 2000.
12. Hoffman, JR, Kang, J, Ratamess, NA, and Faigenbaum, AD. Biochemical and hormonal responses during an intercollegiate football season. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 1237–1241, 2005.
13. King, T, Jenkins, DG, and Gabbett, TJ. A time motion analysis of professional rugby league match play. J Sports Sci 27: 213–219, 2009.
14. Howatson, G and Milak, A. Exercise-induced muscle damage following a bout of sport specific repeated sprints. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2419–2424, 2009.
15. Kinugasa, T and Kilding, AE. A comparison of post-match recovery strategies in youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 1402– 1407, 2009.
16. Kyrolainen, H, Takala, T, and Komi, P. Muscle damage induced by stretch-shortening cycle exercise. Med Sci Sport Exerc 30: 415–420, 1998.
17. MacLeod, H, Morris, J, Nevill, A, and Sunderland, C. The validity of a non-differential global positioning system for assessing player movement patterns in field hockey. J Sports Sci 27: 121–128, 2009.
18. Magal, M, Dumke, CL, Urbiztondo, ZG, Cavill, MJ, Triplett, NT, Quindry, JC, McBride, JM, and Epstein, Y. Relationship between serum creatine kinase activity following exercise-induced muscle damage and muscle fibre composition. J Sports Sci 28: 257–266, 2010.
19. McLellan, CP, Lovell, D, and Gass, GC. Creatine kinase and endocrine responses of elite players pre, during and post rugby league match-play. J Strength Cond Res 24 (11): 2908–2919, 2010.
20. Peake, JM, Suzuki, K, Wilson, G, Hordern, M, Nosaka, K, Mackinnon, L, and Coombes, JS. Exercise-induced muscle damage, plasma cytokines, and markers of neutrophil activation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 737–745, 2005.
21. Portas, M, Rush, C, Barnes, C, and Batterham, A. Method comparison of linear distance and velocity measurements with global positioning satellite (GPS) and the timing gate techniques. J Sports Sci & Med 6: 7–8, 2007.
22. Slattery, KM, Wallace, LK, Bentley, DJ, and Coutts, AJ. Effect of training load on simulated team sport match performance. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 37: 315–322, 2012.
23. Smart, DJ, Gill, ND, Beaven, CM, Cook, CJ, and Blazevich, AJ. The relationship between changes in interstitial creatine kinase and game related impacts in rugby union. Br J Sports Med 42: 198–201, 2008.
24. Takarada, Y. Evaluation of muscle damage after a rugby match with special reference to tackle plays. Br J Sports Med 37: 416–419, 2003.
25. Thorlund, JB, Aagaard, P, and Madsen, K. Rapid muscle force capacity changes after soccer match play. Int J Sports Med 30: 273–278, 2009.
26. Tiidus, PM and Ianuzzo, CD. Effects of intensity and duration of muscular exercise on delayed soreness and serum enzyme activities. Med Sci Sport Exerc 15: 461–465, 1983.
27. Vining, RF, McGinley, RA, Maksvytis, JJ, and Ho, KY. Salivary cortisol: A better measure of adrenal cortical function than serum cortisol. Ann Clin Biochem 20: 329–335, 1983.