Blog

In the world of strength and conditioning, athletes often perform hundreds or even thousands of jump-based exercises or movements throughout their annual training cycle as a means to develop explosive power and athletic performance. For these athletes, jumping is only part of the equation; landing safely from each jump in a manner that minimizes risk of knee injury bears immeasurable importance.

While strength and conditioning coaches often spend much of their time instructing their athletes on the mechanics of maximizing jump performance and explosive power (and rightfully so), not as much instruction or time is typically given towards landing safely or efficiently.

This is problematic since poor landing mechanics can significantly increase injury potential to the athlete, notably to the knee. Over 25% of all athletes who experience an ACL tear will not return to their previous activity levels even with successful surgery and rehabilitation, and athletes who undergo ACL reconstruction are 15 times more likely to re-rupture than those without history of ACL rupture.^1,2

Over 25% of all athletes who experience an ACL tear will not return to their previous activity levels even with successful surgery and rehabilitation. Share on X

While training for maximal jumping ability is critical to optimizing an athlete’s performance, optimal vertical jump performance doesn’t mean much if an athlete sustains an injury upon landing. As such, optimal biomechanics when landing from a jump task are just as critical to develop as when executing the jump itself.

Why Look at Jump Landing Mechanics?

While contact-based knee injuries within sport are essentially non-preventable, non-contact knee injuries should be of particular interest to strength coaches and clinicians due to the largely modifiable neuromuscular factors that can be implemented to reduce or eliminate their occurrence.³

Non-contact knee injuries are prevalent within sport, with approximately 18% of these injuries arising within game play and 37% arising within practice or training sessions.⁴ Biomechanical errors involving knee valgus and stiff landings, among other such faults, are associated with increased injury risk to the athlete.

While numerous movement screening protocols have been designed to identify potential injury risks and aberrant movement patterns, many of these screens do not analyze an athlete’s jump-landing mechanics—an integral sport-specific task for many athletes. This is not to say that other screening protocols should be discouraged; rather that the coach or clinician must account for all facets of the athlete’s sport and implement movement screening protocols in line with their sporting tasks, including landing from a vertical jump.

The coach or clinician must account for all facets of the athlete’s sport and implement movement screening protocols in line with their sporting tasks. Share on X

As an example, Everard et al. conducted a research study to identify the relationship between the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) and the Landing Error Scoring System (LESS). While both systems have been shown in numerous studies to be reliable and valid, the results from Everard et al. found that performing well on one screen did not indicate an athlete would perform well on the other.⁵

As such, screening for, and revealing, biomechanical flaws within an athlete’s movement should include both generalized movement patterns as well as sporting-specific tasks to maximize the athlete’s overall safety and wellbeing. In the case of athletes whose sporting tasks involve jumping (basketball, volleyball, etc.), ensuring optimal biomechanics when landing should not be overlooked.

How any identified biomechanical issues are corrected will depend on multiple factors, including the particular faults identified, needs of the athlete, and scope of practice for the coach or clinician. As such, it is important to realize that there is no universal approach for how jump landing mechanics should be rectified.

As a result, the following is a discussion of the Landing Error Scoring System as it pertains to screening for non-contact knee injury risks in athletes, but it does not offer specific insight regarding corrective intervention. An individualized approach should always be taken for each athlete.

The LESS Test

The LESS is a screening tool developed to identify the risk of potential non-contact knee injury in athletes, notably for ACL injury (though associated risk such as meniscal and MCL injuries can also be factored). The premise of the system is that identification of biomechanical (body position-based) errors present within the lower extremities during jump-landing can lead to reduction of injury risk via corrective interventions, such as hip and knee strengthening, improving proprioceptive awareness, and overall landing technique.

The premise of LESS is that identification of biomechanical errors present within the lower extremities during jump-landing can lead to reduction of injury risk via corrective interventions. Share on X

The jump-landing task is recorded via video from two different cameras—one recording the sagittal plane (recording the athlete from the side) while the other records the frontal plane (recording the athlete from the front). Each camera is placed 3 meters away from the landing zone at a height of 1 meter above the floor.

The system works by evaluating 17 different biomechanical occurrences that take place throughout the body during the jump-landing task (also termed a drop-vertical jump). The examination for scoring can be divided into three categories:

1. Jump-landing technique as it relates to position of the trunk and lower extremity position upon connecting with the ground.
2. The scoring of faults involving foot position between initial ground contact and maximal knee flexion.
3. Movements of the trunk and lower extremities that occur between initial ground contact and maximal knee flexion.

Scoring for the 17 items uses a dichotomous scoring rubric for the first 15 items (see the scoring sheet below), noting either the presence or absence of a movement error; a score of 0 indicates an absence of error while 1 denotes the presence of an error. Item 16 (joint displacement) and 17 (overall impression) can be scored with three potential outcomes (see scoring list below). The analysis and subsequent scoring are done manually by a trained individual upon analyzing the recorded video at a later point in time.

A higher overall score of the test indicates a greater number of movement errors arising during the jump-landing task and therefore correlates with higher risk for potential non-contact knee injury for the athlete.

Testing Procedures

To perform the test, the athlete stands on a 30-centimeter jump box. Then, when given verbal command, the athlete jumps forward off the box with both feet, lands at a pre-measured distance of 50% their body height in front of the box, and immediately performs a vertical jump with maximal effort.

Validity and Reliability of the LESS Test

Any strength coach or clinician incorporating standardized tests into their athletes’ testing—be it performance-based or prevention-based—should ensure the test is valid and reliable (validity assesses if the test measures what it claims to measure, and reliability assesses if the test is able to consistently measure results).

Any strength coach or clinician incorporating standardized tests into their athletes’ testing—be it performance-based or prevention-based—should ensure the test is valid and reliable. Share on X

The LESS test has been shown to be both valid and reliable for the assessment of jump-landing biomechanics as it pertains to injury risk within athletes.^6,7 The test also exhibits excellent expert vs novice interrater reliability when assessing 3D kinematic motion patterns utilized for scoring of the LESS.⁸

Strengths & Weaknesses of the LESS Test

As with any test or system, inherent strengths and weaknesses can be found within the LESS. The extent of each respective strength and weakness will largely be determined by the coach or clinician regarding their own unique situations, resources, etc.

Strengths of the Landing Error Scoring System

Naturally, the inherent strength of the LESS is its repeated scientific-backing to be a valid and reliable screening tool toward the risk of non-contact knee injury in athletes.^6,9,10,11 One could argue that identifying and preventing ACL and other associated non-contact knee injuries through appropriate intervention is the ultimate strength of any screening system. As a result, any inherent weaknesses of the system (discussed below) might be seen as more of an inconvenience, as injury prevention is worth its weight in gold.

Of notable interest, the LESS has been shown to be valid and reliable for various populations and has been shown to identify risk of re-injury in athletes having undergone ACL reconstruction, making it a noteworthy system for directing areas of focus for the athlete’s rehabilitation and eventual return to sport.¹² Additionally, within the ACL reconstruction population, the LESS has shown to reveal greater extent of landing errors for female populations when compared to their male counterparts.¹³

The LESS has been shown to be valid and reliable for various populations and has been shown to identify risk of re-injury in athletes having undergone ACL reconstruction. Share on X

Limitations & Practical Considerations

The requirement of dedicated video equipment to capture and thereafter analyze jump-landing mechanics in athletes has been seen as an impediment by many clinicians and coaches, particularly for organizations with a modest budget or for professionals who must record and thereafter manually analyze high volumes of athletes at a later point in time. Understandably, the need for a coach or clinician to acquire video equipment, establish a testing area, set-up equipment, and watch recorded videos is often seen as a barrier to implementing LESS screening into athlete testing.

Additionally, when testing large groups of athletes, the need to account for different landing positions with each athlete (landing distance is determined by the athlete’s height), can create an additional inconvenience by moving any visual landing target for each athlete. Interestingly, different landing distances are often reported within literature, though some authors have concluded that landing distance should be kept at a standardized distance of 50% the athlete’s height since different landing distances can produce different biomechanical results, leading to different scoring and subsequent categorization of errors.¹⁴

Real-Time Analysis: Modifications to the LESS

In an attempt to overcome any perceived issues involving practicality of the LESS, modifications to the system have been developed, allowing for real-time analysis to be performed either by an examiner or through dedicated software designed to capture, analyze, and interpret jump-landing mechanics in real-time.

In the case of real-time scoring being performed by a trained coach or clinician, the modified LESS is used. For real-time analysis and scoring performed by dedicated software, the traditional LESS is utilized.

The Modified LESS

With the modified LESS, a 10-characteristic jump-landing rubric is used in place of the traditional 17-point rubric. This allows for simplification of the test so a trained examiner can observe and score the athlete’s performance in real-time, negating the need for video capture and later analysis. The tester watches the athlete perform two drop-jumps from the front and two more from the side. All other metrics (box height, jump distance, etc.) remain the same.

This modified version has been shown to have high levels of interrater reliability, making it a practical and reliable screening tool for professionals working with the athlete.⁷

Computerized real-time analysis

With the advancement of modern technology, research has been undertaken to determine if computerized real-time video analysis can be a valid and reliable means to performing the LESS assessment. If the ability exists for dedicated software to perform such an immediate analysis, the LESS could become a much more efficient and practical system to incorporate for coaches and professionals working with teams and large numbers of athletes.

With the advancement of modern technology, research has been undertaken to determine if computerized real-time video analysis can be a valid and reliable means to performing the LESS assessment. Share on X

Currently, researchers have examined the ability to automate traditional (i.e., non-modified scoring) LESS scoring through dedicated software and found doing so to be valid and reliable. One study by Mauntel et al. found a real-time markerless motion capture software to have the same reliability in identifying biomechanical errors as expert raters.¹⁵ When using these particular systems, it should be noted that different software programs exist; however, many of these software applications rely on using 3D motion analysis or depth sensor cameras, which may still be cost prohibitive for some coaches or organizations.

Another study by Hébert-Losier et al. looked at automating the LESS through deep learning software from 2D video when combined with machine learning methods, which eliminates the need for depth sensor cameras, allowing for analysis through traditional video recording. Results were favorable, with the authors noting that deep learning software will allow reliable scoring interpretation using smartphone cameras and a subsequent app, paving the way to great accessibility for coaches, teams, and clinicians looking to incorporate the LESS into their athlete assessments.¹⁶

It should be noted that the authors of this study mention that further study of these software systems and programs will be required to further enhance the scoring agreement between the automated system and manual scoring done by coaches or clinicians beyond their current levels.

Final thoughts

If jumping is all about performance, landing is all about safety. A dedicated effort should be made by strength coaches, clinicians, and other professionals to deliberately assess, identify, and correct jump-landing errors in their athletes to reduce the risk of non-contact knee injuries. The LESS provides a reliable and valid means 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. Brophy RH, Schmitz L, Wright RW, et al. “Return to Play and Future ACL Injury Risk After ACL Reconstruction in Soccer Athletes From the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) Group.” Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(11):2517-2522. doi:10.1177/0363546512459476

2. Paterno MV, Rauh MJ, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, Hewett TE. “Incidence of contralateral and ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after primary ACL reconstruction and return to sport.” Clin J Sport Med Off J Can Acad Sport Med. 2012;22(2):116.

3. Emery CA, Roy TO, Whittaker JL, Nettel-Aguirre A, Van Mechelen W. “Neuromuscular training injury prevention strategies in youth sport: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(13):865-870.

4. Hootman JM, Dick R, Agel J. “Epidemiology of collegiate injuries for 15 sports: summary and recommendations for injury prevention initiatives.” J Athl Train. 2007;42(2):311.

5. Everard EM, Harrison AJ, Lyons M. “Examining the relationship between the functional movement screen and the landing error scoring system in an active, male collegiate population.” J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(5):1265-1272.

6. Hanzlíková I, Hébert-Losier K. “Is the Landing Error Scoring System Reliable and Valid? A Systematic Review.” Sports Health Multidiscip Approach. 2020;12(2):181-188. doi:10.1177/1941738119886593

7. Padua DA, Boling MC, DiStefano LJ, Onate JA, Beutler AI, Marshall SW. “Reliability of the landing error scoring system-real time, a clinical assessment tool of jump-landing biomechanics.” J Sport Rehabil. 2011;20(2):145-156.

8. Onate J, Cortes N, Welch C, Van Lunen B. “Expert versus novice interrater reliability and criterion validity of the landing error scoring system.” J Sport Rehabil. 2010;19(1):41-56.

9. Everard E, Lyons M, Harrison AJ. “Examining the reliability of the Landing Error Scoring System with raters using the standardized instructions and scoring sheet.” J Sport Rehabil. 2019;29(4):519-525.

10. Ramang DS. “The landing error scoring system as a tool for assessing anterior cruciate ligament injury.” Adv Sci Lett. 2017;23(7):6694-6696.

11. Padua DA, Marshall SW, Boling MC, Thigpen CA, Garrett WE, Beutler AI. “The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) Is a Valid and Reliable Clinical Assessment Tool of Jump-Landing Biomechanics: The JUMP-ACL Study.” Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(10):1996-2002. doi:10.1177/0363546509343200

12. Bell DR, Smith MD, Pennuto AP, Stiffler MR, Olson ME. “Jump-landing mechanics after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a landing error scoring system study.” J Athl Train. 2014;49(4):435-441.

13. Kuenze CM, Trigsted S, Lisee C, Post E, Bell DR. “Sex differences on the landing error scoring system among individuals with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.” J Athl Train. 2018;53(9):837-843.

14. Hanzlíková I, Hébert-Losier K. “Clinical implications of landing distance on landing error scoring system scores.” J Athl Train. 2021;56(6):572-577.

15. Mauntel TC, Padua DA, Stanley LE, et al. “Automated quantification of the landing error scoring system with a markerless motion-capture system.” J Athl Train. 2017;52(11):1002-1009.

16. Hebert-Losier K, Hanzlikova I, Zheng C, Streeter L, Mayo M. “The ‘DEEP’landing error scoring system.” Appl Sci. 2020;10(3):892.

Coaching, like teaching, is the art of helping someone achieve something they previously couldn’t do. When it’s just you and the athlete on the platform, and they can’t seem to figure out how to best pull the bar off the floor without their hips rising too fast, knowing how to coach them through this moment is what separates the good and the great.

Any coach can point out incorrect technique, and many can demonstrate correct technique…but how many coaches can talk an athlete through a sticking point, using cues and instruction to help communicate the task’s end goal? Even more importantly, how do you coach them through a sticking point when what you usually do is not working?

Do you blame the athlete? Get frustrated? Blame yourself? Give up?

If the athlete isn’t getting one cue, stop and try another. You can’t fit a square peg through a round hole, says @Tate_Tobiason. Share on X

Every athlete is different and will respond to different cues. A coach can’t keep yelling “CHEST UP!” for the fourth week in a row if their athlete is not responding to it and their chest keeps collapsing as their hips shoot back. At this point, it may be time to explore different cueing options, such as “drive with your quads.” If the athlete is not getting one cue, stop and try another. You can’t fit a square peg through a round hole.

Broadening Your Coaching Capacity

So, let’s take the time to expand our cueing options and help our athletes become the best versions of themselves. The following is my attempt at expanding cueing options for common technique issues I have seen in the gym for three foundational movement patterns.

1. Squat

The squat is a staple in nearly every training program. Whether bilateral or unilateral, athletes find numerous benefits from the king of movement patterns; as coaches, we should be ready to help them do it safely and efficiently.

Cue: “Open your hips.”

When squatting, many lifters struggle with shifting their weight forward as they descend into the squat. Their knees are pushed forward, and once ankle mobility runs out, they end up on their toes, compromising safety and efficiency. Coaches commonly instruct their athletes to push their knees out in hopes of the athlete drifting forward. While this cue correctly identifies what needs to happen, I don’t believe it effectively cues the athlete to fix the issue. Early in my coaching career, I used this cue all the time, but it only resulted in athletes pushing their knees so far apart that their feet would begin to supinate as they continued shifting their knees forward.

One day, while attending a lifting seminar, I heard powerlifting legend Ed Coan coaching up a volunteer, and he talked about how lifters needed to “open their hips” so they could descend straight down into the squat. He used more colorful language for his cue, but the concept remained the same, and I took it back to my athletes, telling them to “open your hips,” as I demonstrated while descending into a squat. Suddenly, it started clicking for them. Their chests stayed more upright, their knees did not shoot excessively forward, their squat numbers went up, and most importantly, their confidence improved.

Cue: “Root your foot” or “Three points of pressure.”

In any squatting movement, whether bilateral or unilateral, a good lift starts with solid feet. Some lifters struggle to balance their weight throughout their foot, resulting in unstable weight shifts and risky working sets once the weight increases.

To remedy balance issues, I tell my athletes to ‘root your foot’ or ‘3 points of pressure,’ explaining how to distribute pressure between 3 points of contact in our feet: big toe, pinky toe, and heel. Share on X

It’s not good enough to tell the athlete in front of us to find their balance or steady themselves. They need something more. To remedy balance issues, I tell my athletes to “root your foot” or “three points of pressure,” explaining how we should distribute pressure between three points of contact in our feet: big toe, pinky toe, and heel. This is what I call “rooting the foot.” I’ve found this cue helps athletes better stabilize themselves, and whenever I say “root your foot” in a session, they immediately know what I’m talking about.

Video 1. Root the foot—To produce good force into the ground, you must have a stable foot base.

Cue: “Drive through the front of your heel.”

Building on foot pressure in any squatting movement, when ascending from the squat, many athletes shift forward onto their forefoot. This is neither safe nor optimal for performance. To remedy this, some coaches tell their athletes to drive through their heels or, when in the lift, “heels, heels, heels!” However, I find this cue to be ineffective.

In my experience, athletes shift their weight too far back, opening themselves to a new host of problems. I like instructing my athletes to drive through the front part of their heel instead. This cue helps them understand that they need to shift their weight back—but not too far back—allowing them to effectively balance and apply force effectively through their lower body.

Cue: “Squeeze your glutes and let your feet naturally rotate out.”

While this isn’t necessarily a cue, it’s a good tip to help your athletes find their optimal toe angle while squatting, compared with the common instruction of “turn your feet out 45 degrees.” You can either use this on day one with athletes or pull it out of the toolbox when you notice an athlete struggling to find their stance.

Simply have the athlete stand on the platform in their socks, in a shoulder-width stance. Starting with their toes pointing forward, instruct them to squeeze their glutes, allowing their hips/legs to rotate out naturally. The results should place the athlete in a good toe angle for squatting with their individual anatomy. This process is not foolproof, so coaching discernment will be required. Use your best judgment.

Video 2. Finding the right starting point for the feet in a squat.

2. Hip Hinge

The hip hinge is arguably the hardest movement to teach in the gym. When performing a hinge, I’ve seen athletes do everything but hinge at the hips. This movement takes a while to click for some, and as coaches, we should be ready with a wide array of cueing options.

The hip hinge is arguably the hardest movement to teach in the gym. It takes a while to click for some, and as coaches, we should be ready with a wide array of cueing options, says @Tate_Tobiason. Share on X

Cue: “Shave your legs with the bar.”

What do most of us coaches tell our athletes when they let the barbell drift away from their legs during the hip hinge? Keep the bar close! Okay, but what does close mean? Many athletes may believe that 2 inches away is close. If I were 2 inches away from your face, you’d think I was pretty close. Thus, many miss the point of the cue.

I have found success with the cue “shave your legs with the bar” or simply “shave your legs,” as it communicates to the athletes how close to their legs they need the bar. Obviously, they don’t need to truly drag the bar up their legs, but this helps get the point across in a fun and unorthodox way.

Cue: “Brace like you’re about to get gut-punched.”

Many athletes struggle with proper core bracing during weight training, especially in the hip hinge. Some look like a flamingo with an overly arched spine, while others could pass as the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Rather than simply tell the athlete to brace their core, which normally results in them flexing their abs and not bracing them, I go a bit further and tell them to do it as if they are about to be gut-punched.

Sometimes, to help illustrate the point, I slowly bring my fist toward the athlete’s gut. It then clicks in their head how they need to brace outwardly, bringing their rib cage slightly down to protect themselves. This cue has worked wonders for me in optimizing bracing technique and, in turn, has resulted in better hip hinges.

3. Bench

While the bench press may not be considered the most functional lift, it is still a staple across many programs. Regardless of your opinion on the movement itself, many coaches still program some horizontal press variation, which many of these cues can be used for interchangeably.

Cue: “Row the bar to your chest.”

If you do any powerlifting or train to maximize your bench press, you quickly understand how important stability and tightness are to the lift. However, many athletes do not achieve or even maintain tightness in the bench press due to how they lower the bar. In their minds, the goal is to simply get the bar back up. Who cares about how it goes down, am I right?

This mindset leads to sloppy bench press reps and an eventual plateau in strength. Rather than reminding my athletes to “stay tight,” I like to cue them to “row the bar to your chest.” This cue helps them slow down the lift and be purposeful throughout the movement. In addition, when I explain that they should row the bar, I go on to instruct them to actually flex their lats. The resulting stability and confidence are immediately noticeable.

Cue: “Turn your knuckles white.”

When I begin to see athletes plateau in the bench press, I look at two things: their hands and their legs. Many athletes passively hold the bar in their hands without any (or with very little) muscular engagement in their forearms. Now, I don’t currently have a fancy study to back this up, but I do believe that when you grip the bench bar tightly, your CNS is better engaged; with that, your body enters into a more optimal fight response, allowing you to lift more. A tighter grip on the bar is also safer for the spotter and lifter.

When I begin to see athletes plateau in the bench press, I look at two things: their hands and their legs. Many athletes passively hold the bar in their hands, says @Tate_Tobiason. Share on X

Cue: “Make it a full body lift.”

The bench press can and should be a full-body lift. This means the legs should be involved. The athlete should plant their feet into the ground, and once the bar touches the chest, their quadriceps should flex violently. This drives force up into the upper body, helping the athlete push heavier weight while providing added stability. This is a great cue for the athletes whose legs look like they are dancing mid-lift.

It Will All Start to Click

While not an exhaustive list, I hope these cues expand your toolbox and help you become a better communicator on the gym floor. Remember that coaching is an art, and simply plugging these cues in does not guarantee success. Use your discernment and find what clicks for the athlete in front of you. Watch their body language, ask them if what you just said made any sense, or even ask them to coach it back to you.

Take the time to work with them, trying multiple cues, and once it begins clicking, you’ll know it. Their face will light up, and the weights will start moving better. Take this time to celebrate with them; it’s one of the best feelings in coaching.

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

Scene: The triple jump competition at a high school near you. 

An athlete prepares to take his third triple jump attempt. His previous jumps were fouls. He needs to meet or better his personal record to get an additional three jumps in finals. He raises his hands and begins a slow clap. The crowd complies. The jumper begins his acceleration down the runway, building speed. He takes off at the 40-foot board. The hop looks good. The step is solid. And the jump…leaves him short of the sand. The crowd reacts with a gasp at the awkward landing on his right foot. His leg crumbles, and he rotates forward. The result is a faceplant in the sand. 

I have been to more than 400 track competitions in my lifetime, and finishing a triple jump short of the pit is something that happens at the vast majority of them. As an “event official,” I have regularly observed triple jumpers “fouling out”—not due to being over the foul line at take-off, but because they fail to reach the sand. This unpleasant and embarrassing event, which could result in an injury, simply does not have to happen as often as it does.

What could have preceded what occurred in the scenario above? Let’s say that the jumper had a personal record of 42 feet that he attained at the previous meet, where he took off from the 36-foot board (which he had been doing all season). Before that, his typical performance at competitions was between 39 and 41 feet. After his PR performance of 42 feet, he finally felt like he “graduated” to being able to go from the 40-foot board.

Why do high school jumpers have a desire to go from a longer board? The answer is simple: status. I equate it to a similar occurrence in the weight room.

Why do high school jumpers have a desire to go from a longer board? The answer is simple: status, says @HFJumps. Share on X

I remember the first time I could bench press 135 pounds in a workout. The sets were 120, 125, 130, 135. Even though it would have been simpler to just add a 10 to each side for the final set, I made sure to strip the bar and throw on 45s. I wanted to showcase that I was capable of handling them.

The difference in this situation is 135 pounds is 135 pounds. There is no additional risk in getting to 135 pounds with the 35/10 combo or a single 45. There is additional risk when one chooses to take off from a further board, as the example clearly shows. If you have witnessed the failure of a jumper to enter the pit in their third phase, you know that it often looks (and is) painful. In an event where there is already an extreme amount of force, there is no need to add to what an athlete needs to deal with, especially when it is unnecessary.

By the Numbers

The best male triple jumpers in the world have performances close to 60 feet, and the board they often jump from is 42.65 feet (13 meters). If the world-class triple jumper jumps 58 feet, the pit penetration of their jump (amount of the jump that is over the sand) is 15.35 feet (58 feet – 42.65 feet). The percentage of the jump that is over the sand can be found by dividing the pit penetration by their performance. In this case, 15.35 feet/58 feet = 26.47%.

The table below shows common board lengths, performances, pit penetration, and percentage of jump in the pit at various levels.

The outlier in the table above is High School Athlete 1, with 4.76% of his jump occurring over the pit. In my experience, this situation is a regular occurrence at high school meets and invitationals. To be honest, I think if an athlete consistently performs below 10% of pit penetration, the coach is being irresponsible, or the athlete is blatantly ignoring the coach’s advice.

Of course, there are exceptions to every situation. Years ago, I had an athlete who was undergoing a stretch of bad competitions. He was consistently underperforming and getting really down on himself. We were in our last competition of the indoor season, and his first three attempts were under 40 feet from the 36-foot board.

He and I had battled as to which board he should use for most of the indoor season, and we compromised on the 36-foot board even though I would have preferred the 32-foot board, with his previous personal record being just over 40 feet. For his last attempt, he requested to jump from the 40-foot board. I conceded because I felt the danger of him being mentally damaged heading into the outdoor season was greater than the potential of physical damage. He needed a win, and I was out of other options. To my surprise, he ended up jumping a season best by nearly 2 feet on his final attempt.

The positives from this situation were that he left the competition in a positive state of mind for the first time in six weeks, and it strengthened the trust he had in me as his coach. (I listened to his request.) The negative was that the technique he utilized to get into the pit was not sustainable.

The threat of not making it into the pit can certainly cause an athlete to access temporary “superhero” abilities, but many times, it comes at a cost. In this case, there was excessive reaching coming off the step phase into the jump, creating an excessive amount of braking force (the foot contacts the ground too far in front of the center of mass). This is common when an athlete is faced with the threat of not landing in the pit, probably due to the brain telling them to do whatever is possible to get closer to the sand.

So, while he did not pay the cost of landing short of the pit, there was still a cost of dealing with too much force between phase two and phase three. If he were to continue to perform in this manner, eventually, the body would break down. Just because a person can eat a diet of tater tots and Swedish fish every day does not mean they should. There will be a price to pay at some point.

Action Steps

I like to keep things simple. Instead of me or my athletes calculating the numbers in the table above, I have athletes do some incredibly simple subtraction. Note that I use feet in this situation because that is typically what triple jump board systems are at the high school level in Illinois, even though event results are metric. In general, I prefer pit penetration to be between 6 feet and 10 feet.

The average performance can be data built over the year (we usually ignore the inches in calculating the average). I am generally more interested in the average over time than the athlete’s personal record. Utilizing the personal record can lead to the situation outlined at the beginning of the article.

• I instruct the athletes to perform the following arithmetic to attain a range of values:

• • Average performance (in feet) – 6 feet
  • Average performance (in feet) – 8 feet
  • Average performance (in feet) – 10 feet

Example:

• Athlete’s performance over two competitions:
  • 41-6, 40-5, 39-7, 40-0
  • 42-0, 40-11, 40-3, 43-6

• Average Performance:
  • (41 + 40 + 39 + 40 + 42 + 40 + 40 + 43)/8 = 40.625

• Average Performance – Pit Penetration = Board Possibility
  • 40.625 – 6 = 34.625
  • 40.625 – 8 = 32.625
  • 40.625 – 10 = 30.625

Heading into the next meet, I would still advise this athlete to utilize the 32-foot board. In my opinion, despite a definite improvement, there is not enough data to support moving to the 36-foot board. If he continued to progress and add more data with jumps that were 42 feet and above, we would progress to the 36-foot board.

Coaches should also be aware of the conditions in which results occur. I may throw out data from a meet that occurred in extreme weather or facility conditions (cold, wind, rain, heat, and/or a pit with sand 8 inches below the runway are all on the table here). In general, be conservative heading into a meet with poor weather conditions (maybe go down a board) and be consistent in a meet with ideal weather conditions (use the board you typically use).

In general, be conservative heading into a meet with poor weather conditions (maybe go down a board) and consistent in a meet with ideal weather conditions (use the board you typically use). Share on X

This also connects to another important point. While athletes may prefer a particular triple jump board, they need to be adaptable. In Illinois, the standard board system is 24/28/32/36/40. However, not all facilities have this setup (or the condition of one or more of the boards may not be safe to take off from). Early in my career, I heard athletes say something like, “I would have jumped better, but they did not have a 40-foot board, so I had to jump from a 38-foot board.” While my initial thought was to say, “You need to be more athletic than that,” I held my tongue. I realized that I needed to create situations and deliver messages to enhance their adaptability.

First, I change up take-off positions during short approach work throughout the year and emphasize that board distance does not impact our ability to do the job. From there, if I know we are going to head to a meet that has a different board setup than ours (I keep extensive notes of each facility we visit), I say something simple like: “Their board system is different than ours, but we have practiced executing from a range of take-off positions all year. You are ready.” In conjunction with this, I may also try to replicate what they will see at a facility to the best of my ability. Athletes who are comfortable tend to perform better.

I change up take-off positions during short approach work throughout the year and emphasize that board distance does not impact our ability to do the job, says @HFJumps. Share on X

Finish in the Pit!

In Illinois in 2023, there were 1,860 athletes with a triple jump mark. One hundred forty of them were 42 feet or farther. Could some of the 1,720 under 42 feet go from a board longer than 32 feet? Sure. Do they need to? No!

One common ratio for triple jump phases is 35%–30%–35% (percentage of the total jump distance for phase 1–phase 2–phase 3). If we combine the first two phases’ percentages (65%) and multiply that by a 42-foot performance, we get 27.3 feet. So, if a 42-foot triple jumper took off from a 32-foot board, they would be 4.7 feet (32-27.3) from the start of the pit heading into their final phase.

This jumper could consistently jump from the 36-foot board but does not need to—there probably is not much of a chance that they would land in the sand coming off their second phase from the 32-foot board. In my opinion, this jumper should not consistently jump from the 40-foot board. The risk is not worth the reward.

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

Maintaining physical fitness becomes paramount to enjoying a vibrant and active lifestyle as we age. While aging is inevitable, it doesn’t mean everyone must become slower and weaker the older they get. Contrary to common misconceptions, age shouldn’t prevent athletes from pursuing their goals. There are ways for seniors to overcome obstacles and live healthy and active lifestyles.

Challenges Facing Senior Athletes

Continuing an athletic journey later in life brings about a new set of challenges. While the benefits of staying active are abundant, aging bodies may encounter hurdles that require thoughtful consideration and can often be a barrier to reaching these goals.

Aging is often associated with a natural decline in muscle mass and strength, a phenomenon known as sarcopenia. Even the most physically active older adults lose muscle over time. More specifically, the proportion of type-II muscle fibers decreases while type-I fiber proportions increase. Type–II fibers are responsible for fast-twitch movements that sit at the foundation of high-level athletics.

As a result of sarcopenia, senior athletes naturally struggle to maintain the same level of strength and power they had in their younger years. Seniors also experience a noteworthy decline in speed, which means powerlifters and runners alike aren’t immune to the effects. All of the movements that are essential for peak performance—push, pull, squat, lunge, hinge, rotation, gait, the list goes on—start to deteriorate.

Aging can also lead to joint stiffness and decreased flexibility, making it more difficult for senior athletes to move with the same range of motion. Seniors may be more susceptible to injuries due to changes in bone density, joint health, and muscle elasticity. The risk of fractures, sprains, and strains may be higher, necessitating a more cautious approach to training.

Osteoporosis, or weakened bones, affects approximately 20% of women aged 50 and older and almost 5% of men aged 50 and older. This condition can make individuals more prone to falls, increasing the risk of fractures.

Aging can also impact cardiovascular health, affecting endurance and the ability to sustain high-intensity exercise. Senior athletes may need to adjust their training routines to accommodate changes in cardiovascular fitness and avoid pushing their bodies beyond healthy limits.

HIRT Is the Key Ingredient

Based on the aforementioned challenges that older adults face, the key ingredient to optimizing performance as a senior athlete is clear—high-intensity interval training (HIIT). HIIT can simultaneously mitigate the effects of sarcopenia, weakened bones, loss of agility, and declining aerobic capacity.

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) can simultaneously mitigate the effects of sarcopenia, weakened bones, loss of agility, and declining aerobic capacity for older adults. Share on X

The Harvard School of Public Health describes HIIT as an interval training method including several rounds of alternating high-intensity movements—also known as “supersets”—to increase the heart rate to at least 80% of one’s maximum heart rate, followed by periods of rest or lower-intensity movements. This low-intensity stage should be three to five times longer.

The positive effects of HIIT aren’t well studied in older adults, but a growing body of evidence is showing that HIIT can be the ideal training style for senior athletes—particularly those over 65 years old. A comprehensive analysis of 69 studies from the Journal of Sports Medicine found that HIIT may even be more effective for older adults than moderate or steady-state exercise.

The findings from this analysis included improved muscle strength and endurance within the 65+ age group, as well as a decrease in body fat percentages. The well-documented positive effects of HIIT on cardiovascular health also apply to older adults. HIIT is the perfect training style to delay the body’s aging process and allow senior athletes to compete at a high level.

Aside from the positive physical effects, HIIT has also been shown to improve cognitive functioning in older adults. This aspect of peak athletic performance often gets overlooked, but an athlete’s ability to assess risks, solve problems, and develop strategies is just as important as their physical characteristics.

HIIT is the most effective for senior athletes when combined with a strength training program—also known as high-intensity resistance training (HIRT). Athletes must continue to lift weights as they age to maintain bone density, joint flexibility, and the presence of both type-I and type-II muscle fibers. Seniors who lift weights also have a significantly lower risk of falling and injuring themselves than their sedentary counterparts.

HIRT also allows senior athletes to set more observable, measurable goals to ensure progressive overload. Progressive overload in weight training comes in many forms—improved exercise technique, higher maximum weight, greater number of repetitions, shorter rest periods between sets, and, of course, more muscle mass.

Moreover, senior athletes don’t respond as rapidly to training stimuli as younger athletes do. They need a training program that keeps them engaged and motivated when the progress isn’t as noticeable as it used to be. Organizing each workout into short intervals rather than long excursions allows for more consistent and detailed performance tracking.

Creating the Optimal HIRT Program

One of the great things about HIRT-style training is that participants can use a variety of equipment or none at all. Free weights, machines, resistance bands, and bodyweight exercises are all on the table. This level of flexibility makes it easier to create an individualized program that addresses every weakness.

The first step in creating any new training program is to evaluate the athlete’s long-term goals. If they are trying to gain strength and muscle, they should devote at least four to six months to the same program. If their goal is to lose weight, they should only require about two to four months. Gaining muscle is a longer process than burning body fat.

One of the great things about HIRT-style training is that participants can use a variety of equipment or none at all. This level of flexibility makes it easier to create an individualized program. Share on X

When choosing specific exercises, it mostly comes down to personal preference. However, senior athletes may benefit from using more machines and resistance bands over free weights to reduce the risk of injury. A key aspect of HIRT is maintaining a high-intensity level while developing sport-specific techniques.

Senior runners can incorporate strength training into their regimen to enhance muscular strength and stability in their cores, quadriceps, hamstrings, glutes, and calf muscles.

Over time, HIRT focused on these critical muscle groups can improve the runner’s form, help them generate more power with each step, and lower the risk of common running injuries, such as patellofemoral syndrome (runner’s knee), Achilles tendonitis, and plantar fasciitis.

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of creating an HIRT program is determining each exercise’s time interval. Remember—HIRT is a form of interval training. It doesn’t always go by the number of repetitions like traditional resistance training. With this provision in mind, senior athletes may benefit from starting with a simple interval structure.

The most common HIRT structure is a 4×4 “box” approach that has proven to elevate heart rates with great effectiveness. This structure starts with a 10-minute warm-up, followed by a one- to four-minute period of intense exercise to bring the heart rate to at least 85% maximal heart rate.

Next, the athlete switches to a lower-intensity movement for three minutes to bring the pulse down to 70% max heart rate. After a total of four to seven minutes of uninterrupted exercise, the athlete rests for five minutes and repeats the cycle again. Starting with a basic 4×4 structure, trainers of senior athletes can substitute different exercises based on the athlete’s unique goals.

Take, for example, an elite runner: their exercises will focus on developing lower-body strength and stability. This particular athlete’s 4×4 structure might include a light jog to warm up, then a squatting session and leg extensions to isolate the quads. After resting for five minutes, they repeat the process but substitute leg extensions for another isolation movement.

In any case, the program should target each major muscle group for about 10–20 working sets every week to achieve enough stimulation. That means the athlete will likely have to train each muscle group twice a week on a reasonable schedule.

Tracking Progress

Senior athletes should be able to track their progress for each movement by the numbers. The numerical improvements can widely vary, though. Younger athletes with some weightlifting experience often increase their bench press by 10–15 pounds within one month. For senior athletes, that number may be slightly lower.

Another viable performance-tracking strategy for senior athletes is to compare their HIRT numbers to the average weightlifter. The average squat weight is 287 pounds for a male lifter and 161 pounds for a female lifter. Staying above the median ensures that senior athletes are at least on par with younger people in that specific exercise.

If the athlete wants to build muscle, they should aim to add .5–2 pounds every month. Senior athletes may be closer to .5 pounds due to the effects of sarcopenia. Weight loss is more difficult to put a monthly number on, but it shouldn’t exceed more than 5% of total body weight every month. Sudden weight loss can be detrimental to older adults, so it needs to be gradual.

Whatever the sport, senior athletes can gradually optimize their performance through HIRT by setting these achievable short-term goals. It not only fights against the mental and physical aging process, but it also seamlessly adapts to any athletic pursuit. It might take more daily monitoring, but the extra effort is necessary for older athletes.

Injury Prevention Strategies

After incorporating HIRT, the next key ingredient to a senior athlete’s optimal training program is a heightened focus on injury prevention. It’s no secret that athletes past their physical prime are more prone to injuries. Some effective injury prevention strategies include dynamic warm-ups, balancing exercises, and static stretching movements that improve agility.

After incorporating high-intensity resistance training, the next key ingredient to a senior athlete’s optimal training program is a heightened focus on injury prevention. Share on X

It’s vital for coaches to include dynamic warm-ups in senior athletes’ training programs. Begin training sessions with standing and balancing exercises, such as single-leg stands and leg swings, along with walking stretches like walking lunges and hip circles. These exercises are perfect for filling in the 10-minute warm-up stage in the 4×4 HIRT structure mentioned earlier.

Activities promoting balance, such as yoga and Pilates, greatly improve stability. Stretching exercises, like neck rotations and ankle circles, enhance flexibility, making movements smoother. Both practices emphasize controlled movements and mindful breathing, promoting mental focus—an essential skill in competitive sports.

The core serves as the body’s central support system, and a strong lower back, pelvis, and abdominal muscles can further improve proprioception. A strong core stabilizes the spine and trunk during sports while maximizing leg balance and performance. Athletes can strengthen their core through targeted movements like planks, leg raises, and rotational movements.

Recovery

The body’s ability to recover from intense physical activity decreases with age. Seniors may need more time between workouts to allow their bodies to recover fully, reducing the frequency or intensity of their training sessions. For most older adults, it takes around 72 hours to fully recover from a workout.

Extended rest is an option to ensure complete recovery, but it’s not always ideal. In fact, it could lead to detraining. Studies have shown that even highly trained athletes can experience an endurance decline of 4% to 25% after just three to four weeks of inactivity. With these numbers in mind, advanced recovery methods should be explored.

Safety should be a top priority for senior athletes outside of their competitive fields as well. They should devote at least two to three times a week to promote full recovery and improve flexibility. Athletes should use suitable equipment, such as appropriate exercise gear and supportive footwear, to minimize the risk of accidents.

It’s Never Too Late to Progress

Seniors can defy age-related stereotypes by embracing an athletic lifestyle that promotes physical well-being and longevity. It’s never too late to start. Seniors can prioritize their fitness to relish each moment and reap the benefits of a well-maintained and resilient body.

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

The strength coaching profession loves experimenting with fads that promise to give athletes an edge. We transitioned through Nautilus machines in the ’70s, jump shoes in the ’80s, slideboards in the ’90s…and now we have the Nordic curl. Finally, the answer to preventing hamstring pulls, particularly in sprinters.

Not so fast.

Don Chu, PhD, an accomplished jump coach and one of the foremost experts on plyometrics, introduced me to Nordic curls in the early ’80s during his weight training class. The exercise recently got a powerful jumpstart in the general fitness population when Ben “Kneesovertoesguy” Patrick began promoting it as part of his knee rehab program. Patrick has built a huge following, with more than 1.3 million YouTube subscribers and an appearance on the Joe Rogan show.

The basic Nordic curl starts with you kneeling on the floor/ground with a training partner anchoring your feet (see image 1 below). You should place a towel or pad under your knees for comfort. One suggestion I learned from German sports scientist Dr. Tobias Alt is to extend your knees over the edge of the pad to permit the patella to glide easily (see lead photo at top). You can place your hands across your chest or at your sides, but the best way is with your arms bent in a push-up position. This position makes it easier to catch yourself at the bottom and maintain high hamstring activation at the end of the movement.

With your upper legs perpendicular to the floor and your torso upright, slowly lower your legs and torso as a unit, catching yourself with your hands when you can no longer control the movement. When your hands touch the floor, immediately straighten your arms explosively (such as with a push-up) to return to the start.

The Nordic curl’s resistance curve is such that it’s rare for an athlete who has not trained on it for an extended period to perform it without collapsing at the midway point. Share on X

The exercise’s resistance curve is such that it’s rare for an athlete who has not trained on it for an extended period to perform it without collapsing at the midway point, much less return to the start without assistance. In Dr. Chu’s weight training class, one elite male long jumper could do it, and an elite female discus thrower who became a national weightlifting champion and American record holder got close.

To progress in the exercise, you can place a low platform in front of you to decrease your range of motion, reducing the height of the platform as you get stronger. There are also ways to modify the resistance curve to match your strength curve, such as using an elastic band, as shown in image 1. As the band stretches, it provides assistance at the end range.

For weight rooms with a healthy budget, plate-loaded Nordic curl machines adjust to your strength curve to permit a smoother motion. The best known is the Westside Inverse Curl machine®, patented and promoted by powerlifting legend Louie Simmons. The machine’s counterbalanced arm has a padded bar that rests in front of the chest, allowing you to increase the weight incrementally to make the movement easier.

At the advanced level, resistance can be increased by holding a weight plate across the chest or wearing a weighted vest. Because the exercise is so challenging, at first, additional resistance might only be used during the lowering phase (and then released during the concentric phase).

Before discussing some of the peer-reviewed research on the Nordic curl, let’s look at one theory about why the exercise can adversely affect sprinting ability and increase the risk of hamstring injuries.

Nordic Curls and the Speed Trap

One of the most outspoken critics of the Nordic curl is weightlifting sports scientist Andrew “Bud” Charniga. Charniga says that although the exercise may have value for bodybuilding purposes, athletes shouldn’t do it. His central argument is based on the anatomy of the calves and their function.

The two primary calf muscles are the gastrocnemius (upper calf) and soleus (lower calf). Charniga says the gastrocnemius should be considered a thigh muscle because it overlaps the knee and contributes to knee flexion. These factors have implications for getting more out of stretching and muscle-building workouts. Let me explain.

For stretching, in the early ’90s, I attended a hands-on seminar by Bob Anderson in Colorado Springs. Anderson is the author of Stretching, which sold more than 33 million copies. Anderson told us that tightness in the calves is one of the limiting factors to stretching the hamstrings. Therefore, it makes sense to stretch the calves before stretching the hamstrings.

For muscle building, Canadian strength coach Charles Poliquin would use this knowledge of functional anatomy to increase the work of the hamstrings during leg curls.

Because you can lower more weight than you can lift in leg curls, the exercise’s eccentric (lowering) phase is not loaded maximally. To get around this limitation, Coach Poliquin would have you lift the weight with your feet dorsiflexed (toes pulled up) to enable the gastrocnemius to assist with knee flexion. Then, you would lower it with your feet plantarflexed (feet pointed down) to decrease the work of the calves and increase the work of the hamstrings.

As shown by these two examples, understanding the anatomical structure of the calves can improve your ability to stretch and strengthen the hamstrings. However, from a motor learning perspective, Charniga contends that the Nordic curl is a horrific exercise for sprinters.

Charniga says most hamstring injuries in sprinting occur during the late swing phase when your front leg is extended and just about to touch the ground. At this point, the long head of the biceps femoris completes the longest stretch of the three hamstring muscles (the others being the semitendinosus and semimembranosus). How can the hamstrings relax to extend the knee when the calves contract to produce the opposite effect? It can’t—something must give, and that’s usually the hamstrings.

There’s probably no harm in occasionally performing the Nordic curl as a novelty challenge. However, its risks versus rewards may not be acceptable, especially for high-level athletes. Share on X

There is probably no harm in occasionally performing the Nordic curl as a novelty challenge, such as with my experience in Dr. Chu’s class. However, the risks versus rewards of this exercise may not be acceptable, especially for high-level athletes. Let’s look at some research.

The Age of Misinformation

Many internet influencers have made extraordinary claims about the benefits of the Nordic curl, backing their claims with research studies. However, let’s read beyond the abstracts, starting with a meta-analysis on soccer injuries and the Nordic curl, which had this brain-teasing title: “Effect of Injury Prevention Programs that Include the Nordic Hamstring Exercise on Hamstring Injury Rates in Soccer Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.”

A meta-analysis makes the study on a topic easier for the reader by reviewing the results of numerous studies. The researchers of this study concluded: “Teams using injury prevention programs that included the NH (Nordic hamstring) exercise reduced hamstring injury rates up to 51% in the long term compared with the teams that did not use any injury prevention measures.” Impressive, but questions arise when you look closely at the Methods section.

Only five studies met the researcher’s requirements of the study, and in only one was the Nordic curl the only intervention (so, not so “meta”). Here is an example of the intervention protocol in one of the studies accepted for their review:

Hamstring Intervention Workout

Initial Running Drills               

Jog

Hip-In

Hip-Out

Circle Partner

Shoulder Contact

Cut up and Back

Exercises

Plank

Side Plank

Eccentric Hamstring (Nordic Curl)

Single-Legged Balance

Squats

Jumps

Final Running Drills

Sprint

Bounding

Cut Side-to-Side

With so many exercises, how can anyone conclude that Nordic curls made a difference? Perhaps a reduction in injuries occurred despite doing the Nordic curl, a concern pointed out in the researcher’s comments: “Because we did not quantify physiologic variables, we cannot adequately determine the mechanism of decreased injury risk or identify the most effective part of the intervention program.” As for the single study where the Nordic curl was the only additional variable, the results were underwhelming because the researchers found that the Nordic curl “does not reduce hamstring injury severity.”

Many other studies on the Nordic curl have been performed, but some need to be looked at with skepticism. According to a 2022 review by Dr. Alt, “assessments and interventions suffered from imprecise reporting or lacking information regarding NHE (Nordic Hamstring Exercise) execution modalities and subsequent analyses.”

I asked Dr. Alt to expand on his opinion of the Nordic curl, and he replied, “The conventional Nordic curl does not evoke the full potential the way most people perform it, as only 30 percent of generated impulse is allocated to the first 45 degrees of knee extension…Alternatively, extended knee angles should be addressed with high intensity for suitable performance enhancement and effective injury prevention via assistance or guidance.”

Another factor to consider is that even though most strength coaches know about the Nordic curl exercise (and many are familiar with the research supporting it), where are real-world success stories?

Even though most strength coaches know about the Nordic curl exercise (and many are familiar with the research supporting it), where are the real-world success stories? Share on X

In soccer, consider the results of a 2022 study involving 3,909 soccer players from 54 teams in 20 European countries from 2001 to 2022. Rather than decreasing, the researchers found that hamstring injuries doubled during this period and that during the last eight seasons, “hamstring injury rates have increased both in training and match play.”

In American football, why haven’t hamstring injuries decreased in the NFL over the past decade? On average, about two dozen NFL players are sidelined every week in-season due to hamstring injuries. For example, 43 football players were sidelined with hamstring injuries before the start of the 2019 season, and between the 2018 and 2019 seasons, about 25 athletes could not play each week due to hamstring injuries. This trend continues today; for example, Charniga discovered that during one week in October 2023, 48 NFL players were sidelined with hamstring injuries.

But It Works…or Does It?

Again, with all the glowing testimonies about the Nordic curl being able to bulletproof the hamstrings against injury, why are hamstring injuries so prevalent and increasing in some sports? If you need more convincing with “evidenced-based practice” arguments, here are five more variables to reconsider the value of the Nordic curl:

1. Biomechanics

Gestalt is the theory that the sum of the parts is not as great as its organized whole, and in sports, gestalt may translate into “everything is connected.”

The Nordic curl isolates one function of the hamstrings: knee flexion. This may be great if you’re a bodybuilder, but it’s not how the legs work in sprinting. Share on X

The Nordic curl isolates one function of the hamstrings: knee flexion. This may be great if you’re a bodybuilder, but it’s not how the legs work in sprinting. As confirmed by researchers in one 2018 Special Communication in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, “Accordingly, the hamstrings are stretched at both the knee and the hip joints during sprinting, but they are only stretched at the knee joint during NHE.”

As with the leg extension that isolates knee extension, the rigid knee flexion motion is not duplicated in sports, as concluded by one research 2019 study on Australian Rules Football (ARF). “The [NHE] movement does not replicate what is needed in the real world for ARF” and should be “included in a hamstring injury prevention program in this code with caution.” I would add that the fixed nature of the exercise immobilizes the muscles of the ankle used in running and jumping.

2. Force Production

The Nordic curl is performed slowly, so even though muscle mass can be increased, the elastic properties of the connective tissues are not used to increase force production. The prolonged time under tension that occurs during the exercise changes the organization of the contractile components of muscle fibers (pennation angle), reducing a muscle’s ability to produce force quickly.

In high-velocity movements such as sprinting, force is produced briefly, followed by a prolonged period of relaxation. “Sprinters are elastic, pulsating athletes. The fastest sprinters are the fastest relaxers, meaning they get their muscles to fire up quickly and then relax quickly,” says spine biomechanics expert Dr. Stuart McGill. “The same goes for weightlifters. Russian sports scientist Leonid Medvedev showed that the muscles of elite weightlifters relax six times faster than the average Muscovite walking around the street.”

For these reasons, the Nordic curl should be regarded primarily as a bodybuilding exercise, not an exercise to develop athletic fitness. Let’s look at some research.

Force is measured by the equation: Force = Mass x Acceleration, and peak forces in sprinting can reach 8x body weight. Although the Nordic curl is prescribed to deal with the high-velocity forces that occur in sprinting, researchers who evaluated the Nordic curl concluded in a 2021 study, “Overall, peak hamstring force during NHE (Nordic Hamstring Exercise) was not comparable to the peak hamstring force during sprinting.” There’s more.

One 2019 study examined how the Nordic curl affected sprint performance. The researchers concluded, “The NHE group reported trivial improvements in sprint performance,” and “sprint training also produced greater perceptions of soreness than the NHE.” Then there’s a 2017 study where researchers found that a six-week Nordic curl intervention program increased muscle mass but “did not significantly increase eccentric hamstring strength as expected.” In other words, the NHE does not improve sprint performance or develop eccentric strength as well as sprinting does. Besides sprinting, sprinting, and sprinting some more (which can be impractical in cold-weather environments), one alternative is flywheel training.

In other words, the Nordic curl doesn’t improve sprint performance or develop eccentric strength as well as sprinting does. Share on X

Because eccentric contractions produce the highest muscle contractions, a flywheel device can provide eccentric overload to achieve these peak forces by multiplying the force achieved during the concentric contraction. Video 1 shows a kBox being used to produce eccentric overload rapidly, one performed without assistance and the other with assistance. Artur Pacek, MS, CSCS, PhD candidate, an elite strength coach from Poland who has worked extensively with Knox and his athletes, produced the videos and the data.

What’s unique about these two videos is they show how improving stability—in this case, holding onto a barbell—can increase force production. The non-supported version could be considered more sport-specific, as the stability would transfer better to lateral movements, but the supported version would produce more force. Thus, a workout to do both could begin with unsupported squats and finish with supported squats to increase force production.

Video 1. Flywheel resistance training devices can provide high levels of an eccentric load to deal with the high forces that occur in sprinting. This analysis shows that higher force levels can be achieved in the squat when athletes increase their stability by holding onto a sturdy object. (Videos courtesy Artur Pacek, MS, CSCS, PhD candidate)

3. Range of Motion

Some internet fitness influencers claim the Nordic curl strengthens the hamstrings through a full range of motion. It can’t. The Nordic curl starts with your thighs perpendicular to the floor, so it cannot work the biceps femoris through a complete range of motion.

Some internet fitness influencers claim the Nordic curl strengthens the hamstrings through a full range of motion. It can’t. Share on X

In contrast, consider the supine leg curl with cables and roller boards that enable the heel to touch the glutes in the peak contracted position shown in image 5: exercises that can also be performed with flywheel units. One advantage of these variations is the working leg can be rotated internally and externally rather than being held rigid in one movement pattern as with the Nordic curl. Changing the lines of pull allows for more complete muscular development. They also don’t restrict the movement of the patella as occurs with the conventional Nordic curl.

Also, because gravity applies force vertically downward, there is no resistance until several degrees of motion are achieved. If you observe the training of elite bodybuilders, it is often characterized by partial-range exercises. Partial-range exercises, popular with bodybuilders to overload all points of an athlete’s strength curve, also change the pennation angle, affecting the ability of the hamstrings to exert force.

4. Athletic Testing

The Nordic curl is occasionally used to test strength, but what muscles does the exercise test? Is the exercise testing the strength of the calves or the hamstrings, and what are the contributions of each? Further, in what athletic movements is this motion duplicated? What sport is performed from a kneeling position with the lower limbs and ankles immobilized—kayaking?

5. Knee Stress

Compared to multi-joint exercises where stress is distributed over many structures, the Nordic curl is an isolation exercise focusing on a single structure. Strength coach and posturologist Paul Gagné addresses this topic. Gagné has trained more than 500 NHL players and worked with Dr. Guy Voyer, a famous osteopath who gave seminars on knee injuries (which I attended), and he is not a fan of Nordic curls.

“The popliteus (a major muscle involved in knee stability) gets really hammered, especially at the bottom position where the knee has no give,” says Gagné. “I’ve rarely seen people with good technique. They lack control at the bottom of the movement—it’s dangerous.” He adds that the Nordic curl places a high level of stress on the meniscus and a chronic inflammation condition called Housemaid’s Knee (prepatellar bursitis).

Don’t Buy What They’re Selling

Social media has given us access to considerable information about athletic fitness training, but the downside is that some of what we read, see, and hear is misinformation. It’s one thing for a popular internet influencer (and even a research study) to suggest that an exercise will produce remarkable results in athletic performance and reduce injury, but then there’s reality. Such is the case with the bill of goods we’ve been sold with the Nordic curl.

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

Alt T, Personal Communication, 1/4/24.

Charniga B. “Hamstring Injury: Prophylaxis Fallacies in Sport,” Sportivnypress.com, 6/29/21.

Al Attar WSA, et al. “Effect of Injury Prevention Programs that Include the Nordic Hamstring Exercise on Hamstring Injury Rates in Soccer Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. May 2017;47(5):907–916.

Alt T, et al. “Quo Vadis Nordic Hamstring Exercise-Related Research? – A Scoping Review Revealing the Need for Improved Methodology and Reporting.” International Journal of Environmental Research in Public Health. September 7, 2022;19(18).

Ekstrand J. “Hamstring injury rates have increased during recent seasons and now constitute 24% of all injuries in men’s professional football: the UEFA Elite Club Injury Study from 2001/03 to 2021/22. British Journal of Sports Medicine. December 6, 2022;57:292–298.

Afonso J, et al. The Hamstrings: Anatomic and Physiologic Variations and Their Potential Relationships With Injury Risk. Frontiers in Physiology. July 7, 2021;12.

Charniga B, Personal Communication, 1/3/24.

Li Li and Ruan M. “Nordic Exercise Should Not Be Used for Predictive Modeling of Hamstring Injuries,” Special Communication. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. December 2018;50(12).

Milanese S, et al. “Hamstring injuries and Australian Rules football: over-reliance on Nordic hamstring exercises as a preventive measure?” Journal of Sports Medicine. July 23, 2019;10:99–105.

McGill S. “An Approach to Pain-Free Training for Track Athletes with Stuart McGill.” SimpliFaster. 1 December 2023.

Ruan M, et al. “The Relationship Between the Contact Force at the Ankle Hook and the Hamstring Muscle Force During the Nordic Hamstring Exercise. Frontiers in Physiology. March 9, 2021;12.

Freeman BW, et al. “The effects of sprint training and the Nordic hamstring exercise on eccentric hamstring strength and sprint performance in adolescent athletes.” Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. July 2019;59(7):1119–1125.

Alt T, et al. “What Are We Aiming for in Eccentric Hamstring Training: Angle-Specific Control or Supramaximal Stimulus?” Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. June 20, 2023;32(7):782–789.

Pacek A. Personal Communication. 12/20/23.

Gagné P. Personal Communication. 12/15/23.

Coaching individual college athletes on nutrition can be extremely difficult; trying to give accurate and appropriate nutrition advice to an entire team can be even more challenging. College athletics is filled with remarkably picky eaters, poor breakfast choices, dehydration, struggles with gaining weight, and more. Meanwhile, strength and conditioning coaches often balance a lot of responsibilities, including wellness (sleep, mindset, recovery, mental health, etc.), physical development (strength, power, conditioning, etc.), and nutrition education (diet, supplementation, habit formation, etc.).

I have found a nutrition ‘belt level’ system works best with our athletes. This system can free up many hours on the front end when the work is put in on the back end. Share on X

To alleviate the stress in one of those areas, I have found a nutrition “belt level” system works best with our athletes. This system can free up many hours on the front end when the work is put in on the back end.

The Gracie Diet

The system that I use was inspired by two other systems. I first adopted the belt system from The Gracie Diet, a diet protocol created by Carlos Gracie and later broken down in a book by Rorion Gracie. The Gracie family includes a massive lineage of Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BBJ) and Mixed Martial Arts champions—along with their deep culture of training and competing in martial arts, they also swore by a rigid diet plan.

The diet is composed of groups of foods:

• Group A = vegetables, fats, and meats
• Group B = starches
• Group C = sweet fruits and cheese
• Group D = acidic fruits
• Group F = milk

The essence of the diet comes from a guide to follow on certain groups that can and cannot be combined during meals to ensure proper digestion and nutrient absorption. The Gracie Diet offers some interesting concepts, but it is probably not appropriate for the collegiate athlete population.

Along with the diet—and what I found extremely useful—is a progressive system that corresponds with the BJJ belt system (White, Blue, Purple, Brown, Black). There are goals and checklists included in each step. As with any quality system, the first level is very basic, and every subsequent level builds upon the previous one.

The concept with this is to master one step and move on to the next, just like in martial arts. Everyone begins at a White Belt until they meet the criteria to progress to a Blue Belt, and so on. Having a step-by-step system like this provides an incentive to improve and level up. This also gives the subject a challenge—something that fits very well in athletic populations, where competition and continued improvement are the norm!

Precision Nutrition

The second system I adapted is the Precision Nutrition level system for coaching. Precision Nutrition, founded by Dr. John Berardi and Phil Caravaggio, offers industry-leading information, certifications, and coaching. Put simply, their techniques are practical and offer great results. I often find myself referencing their online articles and information before giving my athletes any advice, as there is probably a technique that I am overlooking.

When it comes to coaching, one of their techniques is to group clients into levels. As in the previous system, the levels begin with the basics and progress upon one another. They offer three levels to divide people into:

1. Level 1 includes athletes who have low nutrition knowledge, little nutrition experience, and very general athletic needs. This level of athlete will have a tough time with consistency and a long list of limiting factors.
2. Level 2 includes higher-level athletes (potentially amateur level) with higher workloads, more knowledge, and more specific goals and needs. This level of athlete will be more competent and driven to accomplish their goals.
3. Level 3 includes high-level athletes who have a nutritional base and very specific goals and needs. These athletes will likely have the resources, knowledge, and drive to conquer almost any goal or protocol you implement with them.

A multilevel system like this can make it easy to provide simultaneous goals and education.

Nutrition Belt Level System

When you combine these two, you get a three-level guide that I have used for years at Fordham University with great results from our athletic population:

1. Level 1 = White Belt
2. Level 2 = Purple Belt
3. Level 3 = Black Belt

At Fordham University, I use a three-level guide to develop nutrition that has had great results in our athletic population: White, Purple, and Black Belts. Share on X

Everyone begins at White Belt, no matter their background, and then progresses based on experience, knowledge, and competency. I find that three levels are simple when it comes to grouping. Freshmen and transfers always start as White Belts. Then, a large population of sophomore–senior athletes stay in the middle at Purple Belt. Finally, the Black Belt level stays reserved for those top 1-percenters who either highly excel at their sport or plan on playing professionally after college.

This system also gives athletes an achievable goal, as most should be ready for the Purple Belt level within a semester or so. In that case, you can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Finally, the belt colors give athletes a group to own and identify with. It is hard to explain, but it feels good to them to say they’re a Purple or Black Belt, as opposed to Level 2 or 3. Once your levels are locked in, you can start setting up educational opportunities. 

White Belts

The system begins with White Belts. Very similar to Precision Nutrition, the goals are simple and general for this group. The task for this group is to put together 3–6 “meals” each day. In order for a meal to count, it must have a protein source, a carbohydrate source, and either a fruit or vegetable. I also ask that they have water with every meal.

For some athletes, this is remedial. For others, this is a culture shock. These athletes have only eaten meals that are already put together and have never thought about the components of these plates. For these reasons, I simply ask them to check each box.

At first, these meals may not make much sense in terms of organization or presentation. They also may not be truly optimal in terms of timing as it relates to exercise or a daily schedule. The main goal is to gain awareness of eating habits.

Finally, I do NOT recommend utilizing supplementation or meal plans during this stage. The goal is to hammer the basics first!

Purple Belts

The system then continues with Purple Belts. The goals get a little more specific and complex. This level is all about building habits and mastering them. The athlete and I will come up with and agree on an achievable daily task to perform consistently. This task is specific to the athlete and is completed until momentum is gained. This can be as short as two weeks or as long as 30 days. An example would be to eat a quality protein source (steak, chicken, lentils, etc.) at every meal.

When we feel like the habit is being done automatically, without cues or reminders, we can then choose a new habit or habit stack. Stacking your habits is done by picking a second, healthy habit to do in addition to, and surrounding, the initial habit. In this case, we can aim to take a 10-minute walk after every meal. If the initial habit of eating a quality protein source at every meal becomes automatic, it will be easier to implement the 10-minute walk habit.

This level will take a while to master, as you can really go in many different directions. Mastery of the Purple Belt level is shown by repeated success with long-term habits.

Black Belts

The system culminates with Black Belts. The goal at this level is to get as specific and complex as possible and really focus on performance. At this level, we can finally start to look at supplementation and strict meal plans. I typically begin this level with an assessment (diet recall, food frames, body fat percentage, etc.) in order to make better decisions.

The goal here is to look at daily caloric, macronutrient, and micronutrient requirements and try to optimize them. Some examples include pre-workout sodium consumption or daily/weekly Omega 3 consumption.

Finally, education and autonomy come into play here. I strive to teach these athletes how to read nutrition labels, track their nutrition, and understand the breakdown of their diet. The goal is to enhance their toolbox so that they can sustain their own progress.

Implementation

To prescribe nutrition education effectively, I do one of three types of presentations:

1. Lift Debrief. This first type is the most common and frequent. Lift debriefs happen during the last five minutes of a one-hour lift session. They are extremely useful, due to the fact that you rarely have the entire team and their undivided attention. Use this time wisely!

I use these opportunities to cover one specific nutrition idea, level, or topic. I typically pick something relevant to the current semester, month, season, etc.—like breaking down the components of a pre- or post-workout plate during a pre-season period, for example. Another option would be to cover tips and tricks to master the White Belt level. The point is to have short, simple talks that culminate over time and result in a foundational knowledge of nutrition.

2. Group Lecture. The second type of presentation happens a lot less frequently but is the best opportunity to teach and field questions that have built up over time. I allot time for a 20–30-minute presentation and allow plenty of time for the athletes to ask questions afterward. This is a good opportunity to discuss the entire system, to talk about each level in depth, and to explain how the system and progression work. From here, you should begin to delegate levels and get your athletes started on their habits.
3. Small Group/Individual Chat. This final type can happen as frequently as you like. I use these times to talk to athletes in one specific level at a time. It can be either solo meetings or a few athletes together. The point is to meet only Purple Belts in order to answer specific questions and give better direction.

The Nutrition Belt Level system is just one way to attack group nutrition programming. It was created to make semi-personalized nutrition coaching more efficient. It is far from a perfect system, but it can provide a big improvement. There is also an art to navigating a system like this when it comes to troubleshooting the numerous issues that can and will arise—that will be unique to your situation and coaching style.

The Nutrition Belt Level system is just one way to attack group nutrition programming. It was created to make semi-personalized nutrition coaching more efficient. Share on X

I believe nutrition to be the X factor. Many athletes overlook and undervalue it, but it is well worth the time and effort to address. The Nutrition Belt Level system might be a way for you to continue to develop your athletes further and drive better performance—I hope it does just that!

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

Precision Nutrition. (2016). Working with Nutrition Levels.

Gracie R. (2010). The Gracie Diet. Gracie Publications.

Resisted sprint training (RST) has been part of a coach’s repertoire for decades,^1–3 with research showing the benefits of RST on sprint performance, specifically in the early acceleration phase.^4–5 Coaches have historically used three main methods when prescribing RST loads:

1. A load that is a certain percentage of the athlete’s body weight (%BW).
2. A load to elicit a decrease in velocity compared to the athlete’s maximal velocity. Known more simply as velocity decrement (%V_dec).
3. Absolute load (kg).

Depending on your situation (budget, time, and/or space), you may be obliged to use one method over the other. There have been numerous studies analyzing RST in a bid to help coaches determine what resistances to use. The study by Cross et al.⁶ found that the loading required to maximize power ranged from 69% to 96% of body weight. Another study by Cahill et al.⁷ found loads that caused a certain %V_dec differed between individuals.

These studies show us that RST is not as simple as putting 20kg on a sled and expecting the same adaptations across a group of athletes. Thanks to the development of technology such as the 1080 Sprint, it is now possible to easily and accurately profile athletes and program load.

Resisted sprint training is not as simple as putting 20kg on a sled and expecting the same adaptations across a group of athletes, says @jonobward. Share on X

I’ve been fortunate enough to have had access to a 1080 Sprint for the last five seasons. My programming on the 1080 Sprint comes from reading and speaking with other coaches, experimenting, and putting my twist on “stolen” ideas. Previous SimpliFaster articles on RST have helped shape my approach to how I use the 1080 Sprint, including:

• • George Petrakos wrote two great articles about methods of sled load prescription and programming for resisted sled sprinting. Good reads if you are starting off learning about RST or how to program for your athletes.

 

• • Cameron Josse revealed how he uses maximum power sled sprinting in American football.

 

• • Kyle Davey did an in-depth look at how he uses the 1080 Sprint with his athletes to target speed, strength, power, and potentiation.

 

• Matt Tometz gave us a load-velocity profiling 101 crash course using the 1080 Sprint in addition to this YouTube video, where he shows you how to create your own Excel spreadsheet to run the LVP calculations.

Finally, I have to give props to Dr. Julian Alcazar, who created this free, ready-made template to calculate %V_dec. I’m always grateful when smarter individuals share their work, as it makes my job that much easier!

In this article, I’ll share:

1. How I use the 1080 Sprint with my team.
2. Two different methods I use to profile my athletes.
3. How I program resisted sprints.
4. The results I have had using the 1080 Sprint.

1. Using the 1080 Sprint at Provence Rugby

To set the scene, I work in professional rugby union in France with a squad of 40+ players. I mainly use the 1080 Sprint in the gym, where there is a synthetic turf of 28 meters. I can move some equipment to increase the distance by 5 meters to give the athletes more space to decelerate, but this is not always possible.

The in-season period lasts 10 months, and the team normally has 2–3 gym sessions per week, depending on turnarounds between games. These sessions are split into two groups, the forwards and backs. The gym sessions are approximately 50 minutes and often are followed by a field session. This means I can’t stretch out the sessions. For this reason, I must be smart with my timing and precise in my programming.

The 1080 Sprint can provide resisted resistance in addition to assistance, and the resistance can be fixed or variable. For those of you who are unfamiliar with what that means, here is a breakdown in simple terms:

• • Resistance = You’re the one pulling the 1080 Sprint cord.

 

• • Assistance = You’re the one being pulled by the 1080 Sprint cord.

 

• • Fixed Resistance = The weight stays the same throughout the run. For example, you are running 20m with a resistance of 15kg. You pull 15kg from the first meter to the last.

 

• Variable Resistance = The weight can change throughout the run. For example, you are running 20m with a starting weight of 20kg and program the end weight to be 10kg. Your first meter will be with 20kg, and the weight gets progressively lighter throughout the run, whereby you finish the 20m pulling 10kg.

There are more specifics around how to set the variable resistance—i.e., if you want the drop-off in weight to be quick or slow—but I’ll cover that later in the article.

Familiarization with the 1080 Sprint:

Before profiling my athletes, they all have a four-week familiarization block on the 1080 Sprint. Some of my athletes have been using the 1080 Sprint for five years, while new athletes may have never used the machine. The purpose of this familiarization block is to:

1. Build RST capacity.
2. Become familiar with the resistance of the 1080.
3. Become familiar with the flow of the 1080 within the gym session.
4. Cancel out any “newbie gains” that are seen as one gets more familiar with the 1080. Throughout the first couple of weeks, you’ll often see athletes improve their scores drastically as they become accustomed to sprinting with the machine.

There are two methods I have used for my familiarization blocks.

Familiarization Method #1, which I use before the Load Power Profile (LPP) method.

• Week 1: 1 x 10m @ 10kg / 1 x 10m @ 15kg / 1 x 10m @ 20kg
• Week 2: 1 x 10m @ 15kg / 1 x 10m @ 20kg / 1 x 10m @ 25kg
• Week 3: 1 x 10m @ 15kg / 1 x 10m @ 20kg / 1 x 10m @ 25kg / 1 x 10m @ 30kg
• Week 4: 1 x 10m @ 21kg / 1 x 10m @ 24kg / 1 x 10m @ 27kg / 1 x 10m @ 30kg

As you can see, the distance stays at 10 meters, with the loads getting gradually heavier each week. The last week uses the same weights that will be used during the LPP. This allows me to look at how the athlete responds under these heavier loads and potentially reduce the weight they will use during their LPP. This is generally the case for younger or lighter athletes.

Familiarization Method #2, which I use before the Load Velocity Profile (LVP) method.

• Week 1: 1 x 5m @ 21kg / 1 x 10m @ 15kg / 1 x 15m @ 10kg
• Week 2: 1 x 5m @ 24kg / 1 x 10m @ 18kg / 1 x 15m @ 10kg
• Week 3: 1 x 5m @ 27kg / 1 x 10m @ 24kg / 1 x 15m @ 15kg / 1 x 20m @ 10kg
• Week 4: 1 x 5m @ 30kg / 1 x 10m @ 27kg / 1 x 15m @ 15kg / 1 x 20m @ 10kg

As you can see, the distance gets longer, and the weight gets lighter. I only use 20m in my familiarization block due to space on the synthetic turf in the gym, which gives the athletes enough time to decelerate. If I sprint my athletes for longer and reduce the deceleration distance, some start decelerating before the end of the run because they are worried about not having enough time to decelerate safely.

A limitation of the first edition of the 1080 Sprint is that it only allows up to 30kg of resistance. While for the average Joe, this shouldn’t pose a problem, for professional athletes, you may find that 30kg is not enough to elicit max power (Pmax). Later in the programming part, I’ll touch on how I get around this, but apparently, the second edition of the 1080 Sprint allows up to 45kg of resistance!

2. Load Velocity and Power Profiling

The basic premise of profiling is to sprint your athletes using different resistances and record the velocity or power. If you are completing an LVP—the key here being velocity—you want your athletes to have achieved max velocity before the end of the sprint. Therefore, you need to choose a distance where this will occur.

For a Load Power Profile, use the same distance for each sprint while making sure the distance is long enough for the athlete to create relatively high amounts of power, says @jonobward. Share on X

If you are completing an LPP, you will use the same distance for each sprint while making sure the distance is long enough for the athlete to create relatively high amounts of power. You need a long enough distance to ensure a clear differentiation in power output across different loads, which helps to identify the load that generates peak power.

The LVP and LPP each have their strengths and weaknesses, and each will produce slightly different results. In the end, you must ask yourself what suits your situation best and whether you’re okay with accepting a small deviation in results.

Choosing the profiling method that you will use depends on:

1. How many athletes do you have?
2. How much time do you have?
3. How much distance do you have available to sprint maximally and decelerate safely?

In my situation, I have one 1080 Sprint and 40+ athletes. For this reason, I split up the profiling throughout the week. I won’t gain any friends in the academic world by profiling over different days and different conditions (morning vs. afternoon, etc.), but this is the real world. In the first session of the week, I test the front row and second row from the forwards group and the halves from the backs group. In the second session of the week, I test the back row from the forwards group and the centers and outside backs from the backs group.

The example profiles I have included below are from the same athlete. He was recently injured (hand), which allowed me to use him as a guinea pig. For those interested, he is a 26-year-old flanker who weighs 105.4 kilograms. I also ensured adequate rest time (at least three minutes) between each sprint. He completed the LPP on one day and the LVP on another.

Load Power Profile

Distance: 4 x 10m

Loading: Incremental 21kg, 24kg, 27kg, and 30kg.

Calculate LPP: To calculate the LPP, I take the load that elicited Pmax and assume that the athlete achieved 50% of their max velocity during this sprint.

Because I am using peak power and not peak speed to calculate my LPP, I do not need to sprint my athletes over longer distances to obtain a peak velocity. Also, 95 times out of 100, the load at which the athlete develops peak power won’t change by them running an extra 5 meters. Below is an example of that, where the athlete is sprinting, and between the 8-meter and 15-meter mark, there is no large improvement in their Pmax. This is common to see among most athletes as the load gets heavier. So, to save time and keep the athletes slightly fresher, I stay with 10-meter accelerations.

The athletes complete four accelerations at 3kg increments because it is easy to repeat, I can turn the athletes around fast (and still allow approximately three minutes’ rest between each sprint), and it allows me to put athletes into “buckets” later when programming. I cannot individualize a resisted sprint training program for 40 athletes, so creating these “buckets” lets me semi-individualize the program. I’ll talk more about these buckets later in the programming section.

Ninety-five times out of 100, the load at which the athlete develops peak power won’t change by them running an extra 5 meters, says @jonobward. Share on X

I should note that with my younger (or less powerful) athletes, I might perform the first run with 15kg or 18kg and work up from there. During the familiarization block, you will see how your athletes respond under certain loads, and this will help you choose the correct loads to run for your LPP. If you have fewer athletes, you could complete 5–6 accelerations at 2kg increments for a bit more precision. It all comes down to your situation!

Below, we can see four sprints over 10 meters with incremental loading. This athlete achieved peak power with 30kg of resistance.

Using the LPP Method, we assume that the athlete was running at a 50% velocity loss when achieving peak power, from which I then calculate their profile.

Load Velocity Profile

Distances: 1 x 40m, 1 x 25m, 1 x 15m.

Loading: 40m @ 1kg, 25m @ 20kg, 15m @ 30kg

Calculate LVP: To calculate the LVP, we use a linear regression model.

I use an LVP when I have more time, more space, and fewer athletes. For me, this is often the case during a session with the non-match day 23 (players not selected to play that weekend). A benefit to using this method is that the athlete completes a 40m sprint, which gives me a snapshot of their max velocity. Because I am using the athlete’s peak speed to calculate their LVP, I need the athlete to have achieved max velocity before the end of the run. If they don’t, we run the risk (excuse the pun) of underestimating their LVP.

I use a Load Velocity Profile when I have more time, more space, and fewer athletes, says @jonobward. Share on X

Regarding the weight, I often use 1kg, 10kg, and 30kg with my athletes. When using the 1080, it is impossible to sprint at 0kg; therefore, I am obliged to put 1kg of resistance on the cord. If you have less powerful athletes, you can run with lighter loads for the 15-meter and 25-meter sprints.

Below, you can see the athlete’s three sprints, from which I calculate their LVP.

Above, the trace has leveled out, which means the athlete hit their max velocity before the end of the run. If the trace graphic has not leveled out, you will need to run the rep again and increase either the distance or the weight. Once you have the athlete’s velocity, you can calculate their profile.

You can see there is only a 1kg difference (LPP 60kg vs. LVP 59kg) between the two methods at 100%V_dec, a 0.5kg difference (LPP 30kg vs. LVP 29.5kg) at 50%V_dec, and 0.1kg (LPP 6kg vs. LVP 5.9kg) at 10%V_dec. In my situation, when time and space are a constraint, I prefer to complete an LPP, as these small differences are acceptable to me.

There is one caveat when using the LPP. The first edition 1080 Sprint only has a max resistance of 30kg, and it may not be heavy enough to elicit Pmax for certain athletes, says @jonobward. Share on X

However, there is one caveat when using the LPP. The first edition 1080 Sprint only has a max resistance of 30kg, and it may not be heavy enough to elicit Pmax for certain athletes. See an example below of an athlete whose LVP shows their 50%V_dec load to be 31.5kg. I’ll address how I overcome this in the programming section later.

3. Programming Resisted Sprint Training (RST)

We program RST to improve sprint performance via:

1. Increasing the power output.
2. Improving horizontal force application.

We can program RST to target different aspects of a sprint, which are the acceleration phase, the transition phase, and the maximum velocity phase.^2–8 Given the unique kinetics of each phase, we can modify the training to target each phase of the sprint.

The figure below is from Petrakos’ second article. When programming RST, you must ask yourself what part of the sprint you want to focus on. This will then determine the load and distance that you should prescribe.

Bucketing Athletes:

I mentioned earlier that I bucket athletes. This means that instead of programming 40+ resistances on the 1080 Sprint, I set 4–5 resistances most of the time. Next to the machine, I put a list with the athlete’s name and the weight they need to use for that session. Below is an example.

Early Acceleration:

If I want to target early acceleration (0–10m), I’ll use heavier loads that elicit a 50%–75%V_dec as I look to target Pmax and max force (Fmax). To determine the %V_dec that I want to work at, I calculate the individual athlete’s velocity decrements and compare this to their LVP or LPP to figure out the load I should use.

The data below is from an athlete who completed 2 x 5m accelerations with 30kg of resistance on the 1080 Sprint, with the objective of a velocity decrement of 50% (4.5 m/s). The athlete reached a peak velocity of 4.21 m/s at the 5m mark, which is a velocity loss of roughly 53%.

As mentioned earlier, the limitation of the first edition 1080 Sprint is that it only goes up to 30kg, which is not heavy enough to elicit a 50%–75%V_dec in my more powerful athletes. To counter this, I restrict the speed of the 1080 Sprint cord.

A word of warning—using the speed limit setting on the 1080 Sprint can create some very big technical changes in the sprint, says @jonobward. Share on X

A word of warning—using the speed limit setting can create some very big technical changes in the sprint. I find my powerful athletes can stay stiff through the ankle, knee, and hip and drive forward horizontally. In my less powerful athletes, I find they are not strong enough to maintain good technique and often move side to side and “spin the wheels”; in these instances, I decrease the velocity decrement and only work to a 60%V_dec.

Below are two 5m accelerations where I wanted a 70% velocity loss, which for this athlete was 2.7 m/s.

You can see in the velocity trace that the speed limit kicked in around the second step. Sometimes, the athlete will break the speed limit as they strike the ground, and above is a prime example of that. The limit was set at 2.7 m/s; however, they hit 3.02 m/s. This raises the question of whether I should lower the speed limit further to avoid these small spikes in velocity and keep the athlete around 2.7 m/s, but honestly, I have not played around with this. For now, I’m happy to program the speed limit in accordance with their profile.

Something interesting when running at lower velocity decrements with the speed limit setting is that I see larger peak and average power scores, even though I’m working at a higher V_dec. One would think using a resistance that elicits a 50%V_dec would result in higher power scores, but that is not the case, as seen below. Both the Pmax and Fmax, in addition to the average power and force, were higher in the 70%V_dec accelerations.

Late Acceleration

If I want to target late acceleration (0m–15m), I’ll use loads that elicit 30%–50%V_dec. I understand 0m–15m is not considered “late acceleration” to some coaches, but in rugby, where most accelerations and sprints are over short distances,^9,10 this is what I consider late acceleration.

Below is an example of 3 x 10m accelerations with 30kg of resistance on the 1080 Sprint.

You can see the athlete achieves max velocity between the 7m and 9m marks. Their max velocity was 4.48 m/s, which is nearly bang on the 50%V_dec for this athlete. With the power trace, we can see the athlete achieves Pmax between the 7m and 9m marks, which they then hold through to the end of the run.

Often, I only need to use the resistance of the 1080 Sprint to elicit Pmax; however, if the athlete requires more than 30kg to achieve Pmax, I will use the speed limit setting. As mentioned earlier, there can be detrimental technical changes in an athlete’s running technique when using the speed limit setting. This is something to consider if you are going to use this method. You may have an athlete who qualifies to use the speed limit method, but when they sprint with it, they fall apart technically, and you may find that their power output is not markedly different. In these instances, I would consider not using the speed limit.

Often, I only need to use the resistance of the 1080 Sprint to elicit Pmax; however, if the athlete requires more than 30kg to achieve Pmax, I will use the speed limit setting, says @jonobward. Share on X

Okay, so what does an athlete need to do before I consider them for the speed limit method?

1. The athlete achieves Pmax between the 9m and 10m marks (picture below).

2. The velocity the athlete achieved is greater than their 50%V_dec.

The athlete above qualified for the speed limit method since he achieved Pmax between the 9m and 10m marks, and the max velocity of the sprint was 5.11 m/s, which was a 44% velocity decrement from his 9.2 m/s max velocity.

Below are two 10m accelerations from the same athlete using different loading protocols. The blue trace is the 10m acceleration with an added resistance of 30kg. The green trace was the 10m acceleration that had a speed limit of 4.3 m/s (50%V_dec) and a resistance of 15kg.

In the speed limit protocol (green trace), you can see the athlete reached the 4.3 m/s speed limit around the 3.5m mark. They hit Pmax shortly after the 4m mark and held it through to the end of the run. In the 10m acceleration with 30kg of resistance (blue trace), the athlete continued accelerating throughout the 10m, finishing at 5.2 m/s (above their 50%V_dec), and achieved Pmax in the last meter of the run. Due to the athlete hitting Pmax earlier in the speed limit protocol, it increased the 10m average power by 337 W. They also achieved a higher Fmax and average force.

Through trial and error, I found programming a resistance of 15kg in addition to the speed limit works best. When I use the minimum weight possible on the cord (1kg), the athletes explode off the mark, and they reach their 50%V_dec within the first 1–3 strides. This sounds ideal, BUT the cord jerks suddenly when the speed limit kicks in, which causes a noticeable disruption to their technique and rhythm.

On the opposite end, when I put 30kg on the cord, and the athlete accelerates, they will typically reach Pmax after the 7m–9m mark, and if they are only sprinting 10 meters, it means they are exposed to Pmax for 1–3 meters. When I put a 15kg resistance on the cord, and the athletes accelerate, they generally achieve Pmax between the 3- and 4-meter mark, meaning they will be exposed to Pmax for 6–7 meters. In addition, when the speed limit kicks in, the technique change is only slightly noticeable. For this reason, I use 15kg of resistance when using the speed restriction.

Below is an example of two 10m accelerations, with the green trace having a speed limit of 4.3 m/s in addition to 15kg and the red trace having a speed limit of 4.3 m/s in addition to 30kg.

In the 4.3 m/s and 15kg protocol (green trace), the athlete hit 50%V_dec and achieved a Pmax of 2347 W around 3.5 meters, and their 10m average power was 1773 W. For the 4.3 m/s and 30kg protocol (red trace), the athlete hit 50%V_dec and achieved a Pmax of 2335 W around 8.4m, and their 10m average power was 1416 W. While the difference in peak power between the two runs was small, they differ in when the athlete first hit peak power. This greatly impacts the average power, as seen by the 357 W difference in favor of the green trace acceleration.

Transition Phase:

If I want to target the transition phase (10–20 meters), I’ll use loads that elicit a 10%–25% V_dec. I am restricted by distance in my gym, but if using the 1080 on a longer track or field, I program longer distances. Below are two 20m sprints from the same athlete. The yellow trace is a 20m acceleration with 1kg of resistance. I included this repetition to give an understanding of what speed, power, and forces the athlete produces during unweighted sprinting. The green trace is a sprint using 15kg of resistance (25%V_dec).

From above, we can see that this athlete hit 8.88 m/s when pulling 1kg (yellow trace), which equates to almost 99% of their max velocity. I’ll be the first to admit he is a great accelerator but lacks top speed. In the second sprint (green trace), he ran 20m, pulling 15kg, and hit 6.99 m/s, which is 77.5% of his max velocity, or a V_dec of 22.5%. This is in the ballpark for the 25%V_dec. The only thing I noticed is that he started to decelerate in the last meter, whereas I would have liked him to push through to the finish.

When programming for the transition phase, I sometimes prescribe variable resistance, says @jonobward. Share on X

When programming for the transition phase, I sometimes prescribe variable resistance. The starting resistance on the cord is set at the athlete’s 25%V_dec resistance, and the end resistance is in conjunction with their 10%V_dec. Using the athlete’s data from Table 11, I would set the starting resistance at 15kg and the end resistance at 6kg.

When using the variable resistance setting, I must also set the velocity where the drop-off in resistance stops. I set the starting resistance at 15 kg (25%V_dec) and program the linear drop-off to stop when the athlete hits their 10%V_dec velocity.

Using the data from the table above, I would schedule the drop-off to stop when the athlete hits 8.1 m/s. Because of space in the gym, I am restricted to using 15m–20m, but in a perfect world, I would program 20m–40m using this method. Anything under 15 meters is not long enough, and even then, some athletes who are slower accelerators or have high top-end speed won’t reach 10%V_dec before 20m.

4. Improvements from RST

The goal of RST is to become faster. With my group, I test the efficacy of the intervention in one of three ways:

1. A 20m sprint on the 1080, looking at the 5m splits.
2. Complete an LVP or LPP and compare the results from the previous profile.
3. In session, by looking at the power output the athlete produces when using the same resistance.

Below is an example of using the third method. I ran a familiarization protocol recently, completed load power profiles with the squad, and then ran a six-week intervention where athletes ran 3 x 10m at the resistance that elicited their Pmax. Below are 11 backs (I left out any player who missed one or more sessions), and you can see that six sessions were enough to improve players’ peak power.

Last season, I completed two interventions, side by side, on the 1080 Sprint with nine backs and six back rowers. (If you aren’t familiar with rugby but know American football, these guys are like rugby’s version of linebackers.) I ran a 50%V_dec intervention, targeting acceleration, which consisted of 3 x 10m sprints completed inside the gym session.

Of the 10 players, only seven completed the pre-20m test, six-week intervention, and post-20m test. The other intervention focused on the transition phase, where I had athletes sprint 15 meters with variable resistance on the cord, starting at 25%V_dec and finishing at 10%V_dec. These athletes were my good accelerators, and they hit 25%V_dec around 8m–10m.

I admit that the athletes rarely finished the 15m at their 10%V_dec due to space limitations. I would have liked to use 20m, but that will be for a future intervention! Of the five players in this group, only four completed the intervention and testing. Below are the results.

What stands out to me is the 0.08-second improvement in the 0m–10m split for the 50%V_dec group and the significant improvement in the 10m–15m split for the transition phase group. No improvements were seen in the 15m–20m split, which does not surprise me for two reasons, mostly relating to the SAID principle (specific adaptation to imposed demands).

1. We did not train this part of the sprint in the intervention.
2. The athlete rarely sprints 20m–40m all out during the week to elicit improvements.

One final note!

For those who do not have a 1080 Sprint, unfortunately, you cannot compare your data to the above. Even different starting positions using speed gates will result in performance differences¹¹; however, I know that as practitioners, we still like to compare, so below is data from a 20m sprint using the 1080 Sprint and speed gates.

The average difference of 0.38 seconds, in favor of speed gates, is similar to the study by Rakovic et al.¹² where they found a difference of 0.31 seconds also in favor of the speed gates. The authors found that the difference in time between the two timing methods occurred during the 0–5m split and related to the trigger motion of the sprint. The trigger of the 1080 Sprint is more sensitive than a timing gate and, in my opinion, more accurate, as it responds to any movement above 0.2 m/s.

The trigger of the 1080 Sprint is more sensitive than a timing gate and, in my opinion, more accurate, as it responds to any movement above 0.2 m/s, says @jonobward. Share on X

Experiment with the 1080 Sprint on Your Own

I have no affiliation with the 1080 Sprint, yet it is one of the best tools available for training the sprint. The ability to individually profile and program means you can be accurate in your prescription. If you are lucky enough to have access to a 1080 Sprint, you may find your team setting could be very different from mine, and this dictates how you can use it.

When I was with another team, we used the 1080 Sprint at least twice per week, and sometimes three times per week, to great effect. I encourage you to play around on the machine, be a guinea pig yourself, and share what you find!

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. Costello, F. “Speed: Training for Speed Using Resisted and Assisted Methods.” Strength & Conditioning Journal. 1985;7:74.

2. Cronin J and Hansen KT. “Resisted Sprint Training for the Acceleration Phase of Sprinting.” Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2006;28:42.

3. Lockie R, Murphy A, and Spinks C. “Effects of Resisted Sled Towing on Sprint Kinematics in Field-Sport Athletes.” Journals of Strength and Conditioning Research/National Strength & Conditioning Association. 2003;17:760–767. doi:10.1519/1533-4287(2003)017<0760:EORSTO>2.0.CO;2.

4. Petrakos G, Morin J-B, and Egan B. “Resisted Sled Sprint Training to Improve Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review.” Sports Medicine. 2016;46:381–400. Doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0422-8.

5. Alcarez PE, Carlos-Vivas J, Oponjuru BO, and Martínez-Rodríguez A. “The Effectiveness of Resisted Sled Training (RST) for Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Sports Medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2018;48:2143–2165. doi:10.1007/s40279-018-0947-8.

6. Cross MR, Brughelli M, Samozino P, Brown SR, and Morin J-B. “Optimal Loading for Maximizing Power During Sled-Resisted Sprinting.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2017;12:1069–1077. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2016-0362.

7. Cahill MJ, Oliver JL, Cronin JB, Clark KP, Cross MR, and Lloyd RS. “Sled-Pull Load-Velocity Profiling and Implications for Sprint Training Prescription in Young Male Athletes.” Sports. 2019;7:119. doi:10.3390/sports7050119.

8. von Lieres und Wilkau HC, Irwin G, Bezodis NE, Simpson S, and Bezodis IN. “Phase Analysis in Maximal Sprinting: An Investigation of Step-by-Step Technical Changes between the Initial Acceleration, Transition and Maximal Velocity Phases.” Sports Biomechanics. 2020;19:141–156. doi:10.1080/14763141.2018.1473479.

9. Nicholson B, Dinsdale A, Jones B, and Till K. “The Training of Short Distance Sprint Performance in Football Code Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Sports Medicine. 2021;51:1179–1207. doi:10.1007/s40279-020-01372-y.

10. Nicholson B, Dinsdale A, Jones B, and Till K. “The Training of Medium- to Long-Distance Sprint Performance in Football Code Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Sports Medicine. 2022;52:257–286. doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01552-4.

11. Weakley J, McCosker C, Chalkley D, Johnston R, Munteanu G, and Morrison M. “Comparison of Sprint Timing Methods on Performance, and Displacement and Velocity at Timing Initiation.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2023;37:234–238. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000004223.

12. Rakovic E, Paulsen G, Helland C, Haugen T, and Eriksrud O. “Validity and Reliability of a Motorized Sprint Resistance Device.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2022;36:2335–2338. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003830.

In recent years, the science around sports medicine and sports performance has exploded. What I could not have even imagined in training 20 years ago is now the social norm—not just at the elite level but in most college level athletics as well, and quickly creeping into the secondary school realm. If you would have told me that, for 14- to 18-year-olds in middle and high school, we’d be monitoring 20+ metrics using GPS, sprinting daily with live feedback from laser timers, and choosing to emphasize the power and velocity of movements rather than hitting the “traditional” force generating power lifts multiple days a week…I would have called you crazy!

In recent years, the science around sports medicine and sports performance has exploded, says @KyleSouthall1. Share on X

With 15+ years’ experience in professional and collegiate athletics, various works with the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and USA Wrestling, PhD training, and living in both the sports medicine world as an athletic trainer and in the strength and conditioning (S&C) world as a director, I come at my role from a unique perspective and background. In 2020, when I was set to take another faculty position, I landed a temporary role (or so I thought at the time) as an athletic trainer at Briarwood Christian Schools, just outside of Birmingham, Alabama. At the time I was just going to bridge the gap between a longtime athletic trainer (AT) who left and their new long-term AT solution; after months of more conversations, prayer, and picking the brains of more people than I can count, I called the university I was set to join and instead told them I wasn’t moving forward in the process and that Briarwood was my new professional home.

That’s where the work began—starting the process of building an elite “one stop shop” with the health and performance of our athletes at the center by becoming the Director of Sports Science and Performance. In this role I would oversee all aspects of sports science, the S&C staff, and the sports medicine staff.

How It Began

Briarwood had purchased a lot of equipment and technology—such as 30 GPS sensors and a data dashboard that were not being used—but found themselves in the place asking the same questions as many others: “What to do with it all?” It was great seeing all the numbers—how fast, how far—but what does it all mean? And, then, what to do with it all?

That’s where the conversation started, in a discussion with longtime Athletic Director Jay Mathews. The task was to build a model of health and wellbeing that is second to none at the secondary school level. Sounds straightforward and easy enough, right? Make a few phone calls, have some gurus stop by and show you what they do, buy some tech, and you’re there!

The task was to build a model of health and wellbeing that is second to none at the secondary school level, says @KyleSouthall1. Share on X

Thankfully, we had the foresight to know better. Initially, we started with a vision of where we wanted to be in five years. Then we worked backwards, planning to dot every i and cross every t along the way. The first part of the strategy was recognizing that it will take a minimum of four to five years to test and implement the model, and then possibly longer to see the fruits of the labor.

The Keystone

Our very top priority was, and still is, taking care of the kids. This molded our mission: to maximize performance while minimizing time-loss injuries. The goal had nothing to do with wins and losses or any other socially-driven outcome: we want our kids to perform at their physical, mental, and spiritual best. If we do that, the wins and losses will take care of themselves. As a byproduct, we will produce young, resilient, active adults ready to be functional members of society and ready to lead their families and communities.

We know we cannot eliminate injuries, as they are an inherent risk of sports, but can we decrease the amount of time loss due to injury? For example, by training and providing the resources, can we take the hypothetical four- to six-week ankle sprain and have them physically, mentally, and spiritually ready to return to competition in two to four weeks?

Along the way, objective measures will indicate performance gains and that our athletes are truly healthy, not just showing up with a doctor’s note and saying they “feel good.” By doing this, we can set them up for success on the field, court, and in life by encouraging a lifelong habit of a healthy, active lifestyle. One of our former athletes went on to an elite level Power 5 school and their coach paid us my biggest professional compliment: “Coach, we love Player X and your other guys in our program. They are weightroom, nutrition and life literate. They show up here, get straight to work, and automatically make us better.”

We can set our athletes up for success on the field, court, and in life by encouraging a lifelong habit of a healthy, active lifestyle, says @KyleSouthall1. Share on X

Putting the Model Together

To do this we heavily relied on the Evidence-Based Practice Model. While traditionally used as a medical model, it translates very well to performance training. The model uses three factors:

1. Contemporary research
2. Clinician expertise
3. The wants, needs, and values of the stakeholders

I wanted to take it a step further. As we studied programs around the nation at all levels, we learned from others’ mistakes and weaknesses and expanded on their strengths. Ultimately, we wanted a one stop shop that included sports medicine, sports science, S&C, and high-level coaching. We knew this was going to be a process and not a product.

Sports Medicine

This one was easy. With 15 years of experience and connections, we started here. It kicked off with solidifying a relationship with some of the best and now most accessible sports medicine physicians in America, if not the world. This allowed us to expedite and guarantee medical services from initial evaluation to injury management to post-injury return-to-play rehabilitation for our student athletes, which previously was not available to them. Then we moved on to adding an additional athletic trainer to the full-time staff and created a relationship with a physical therapy group that specializes in pediatrics and sports medicine. We then approached services securing mutual relationships with a sports psychologist, nutritionist, and a data scientist consultant.

Sports Science

The wild card of our major plan was sports science. Here, I took on providing oversight of sports medicine, S&C, and performance. This is also where the big investments are. Our recipe called for 80 GPS sensors—enough for nearly all outdoor athletes to monitor their workloads. Second, we developed “universal movement patterns” that we implement in the seventh grade and build upon as the students’ progress through their physical education curriculum, all the way through graduation. Third, it factored for facility upgrades in the meeting spaces and weight rooms to allow for the successful addition of the sports medicine component of our athletic department.

This group of of individuals oversees the major technology in GPS tracking, performance data, and both internal and external workloads. A major point we found was how environmental factors affected these performance metrics, especially when it came to performance metrics such as top speeds, player load, and internal measures such as heart rate and heart rate variability. For example, a drill done on a morning that is cloudy and 70 degrees with 50% humidity elicited different physiological responses than the exact same drill done in the afternoon while sunny and 98 degrees with 65% humidity. While we know this by experience, we now had objective data and a sports science team to analyze the data to provide insight to the sports coaches and administrators. We can now make more impactful training decisions based on these objective measures.

Like all good research, the more we learned in this role, the more aspects we identified, the more we learned that we didn’t know or understand—a true testament to the adage that good research finds more questions than answers. We tracked indoors metrics as well, but not to the extent that we did outside via GPS. Technology-wise, this is where we look to improve the most in the coming one to two years.

Strength and Conditioning

We wanted to revamp the S&C areas the most. We evolved from an old school style of writing the workouts on the white board, lifts by whistle, and a “lifting heavy metal objects up and sitting them down” mentality to a model using technology, science, connections, and emotional intelligence to make the athletes more athletic.

We want fast, explosive, energetic, and motivated athletes—not ones that look good in uniforms but are not performing at their physiological or mental peak. This position we felt to be our most important hire of all. They had to fit the Briarwood mold, being a person who is both professionally solid and spiritually sound. They had to be a great people person because of the relationships needed to build and sustain this growth. The individuals in this role had to be special and sure-fire fits for the school and system, otherwise the whole model would fall apart.

Emphasizing Recovery

One aspect that we knew we could capitalize on is recovery. While we cannot control what the athletes do on their own time (such as sleep hygiene), we can educate them and maximize recovery when we do have them. We emphasized three points:

1. Active recovery
2. Passive recovery
3. Hydration/nutrition

While we cannot control what the athletes do on their own time (such as sleep hygiene), we can educate them and maximize recovery when we do have them, says @KyleSouthall1. Share on X

For recovery on high workload days and days where their bodies are sore and fatigued, we employ active recovery days including—but not limited to—a dynamic and static stretching routine after the stimulus and hip mobility using track hurdles. For passive recovery, we made a substantial investment in Normatec recovery boots, GameReady units, and foam rollers.

Our pinnacle investment in this area is our post-workout nutrition. We provide a “cafeteria style” nutrition plan that provides a protein shake and two to three snack-like items that the athletes can choose from. Our goal is to have them consume ~35-40g of protein and approximately 500-600 kcals within 15-30 minutes of their workout stimulus to optimize recovery and nutrient replenishment. This has been a major success, especially when coupled with our already highly detailed hydration tracking and electrolyte supplementation when indicated.

High Level Coaching

This one is self-explanatory and not a surprise to anyone reading this, right? Sport coaches are key in any program’s success. They are also the largest moving target. For this one, the biggest part was buying in. With 68 coaches from 16 sports and 58 total teams (responsible for 565 athletes), all we asked was for them to communicate and buy into the program.

Over the first few years we enlisted their feedback and allowed them the opportunity to contribute. Some contribute daily, some more than others, and others less—but they all bought in to fit in. This was by far the most important aspect of the whole program: stakeholder buy-in. If at any point we lost the trust of the players, parents, or coaches, this model and program would not be worth the paper the logo was printed on. Imagine a program where an AT or S&C coach walk into the head football coach’s office and say, “Group X has been overloaded, Group Y is underloaded compared to normal, and overall as a team we are trending above workload norms so to keep optimal given the environmental conditions we need to modify practice”…only to have the head football coach simply say, “Okay, how?” And then imagine that the head coach fully implements the recommendations of the sports medicine or performance staff without question. That’s buy in. That’s trust and faith in the people in the room. That’s an environment for success.

Putting it all Together

About a month into developing the program and collecting the data, it became clear that this was going to be a lot of work. In that time period we had over 8 million data points of GPS metrics, internal workload metrics, wellness survey results, and performance metrics. It’s very easy to get into a state of data overload and go down a rabbit hole only to find a dead end or, in this case, a useless metric.

It’s very easy to get into a state of data overload and go down a rabbit hole only to find a dead end or a useless metric, says @KyleSouthall1. Share on X

The challenge was to figure out what was important. The PhD side of me carried the mentality of “there’s no such thing as bad data.” The AT and S&C side of me said, “This needs to be simple to consume and to present to stakeholders.” After tracking data over time, we identified trends of metrics that we perceived as as key performance indicators, such as top speed in functional environments, attendance, force production during specific movements, injury epidemiology, and injury outcome metrics. Based on these, we developed a philosophy: I kept the coding and large data sets to myself and those helping me code, and I would only filter information to coaches and stakeholders that I could do in Excel(C). This helped me keep it simple and not overload the coaches, which helped buy-in immensely.

What’s Next?

A favorite quote of mine is “Great research reveals more questions than it does answers.” I think this quote fits perfectly in our situation. I often get asked “What’s next?” After having collected 70 million data points on 11 teams and 374 individuals over the course of just over three years, it’s hard to answer. The data speaks for itself in the table below; we must be on the right path.

The low hanging fruit is to replicate the level of workload monitoring inside compared to outside and to expand our successes into other sports while learning from our failures. What’s next? We’re not exactly sure, but by sticking to our core values, mission, vision, and faith, the future is bright for sports science and performance in the secondary school setting.

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