Blog

The density of the college baseball schedule creates a challenge for coaches and athletes to train in a way that will consistently enhance the athletes’ performance.  Consequently, approaching our latest season, I spent a lot of time thinking about the optimal way to organize training, calling other coaches who have worked in baseball and looking at a range of different ways to conduct in-season training via the internet and books.  

I have spent the last three years working with Division 2 baseball, and my process and organization of training for those seasons has morphed into what I will present in this article. This could be used as a framework for coaches who are facing similar challenges. 

In-Season Schedule

Our typical schedule consists of four ballgames a week: One game on Tuesday (often out of conference), then games on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (typically in conference). Our baseball team typically plays about 60% of our games on the road, with travel times generally between 2-5 hours. On a regular basis, our athletes are spending time on moderately long bus rides plus full weekends in hotels.  

With this schedule, we are essentially left with Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday to complete our weight training. 

 

Bucketing by Position

The easiest training schedule to look at is the position players—they will go total body with their lifts all three days. The first training day is a power-focused day with moderate intensity and moderate volume. Coming off a three-game series, this lift should be fairly easy to recover from and not make them fatigued for their Tuesday game.   

The first training day is a power-focused day with moderate intensity and moderate volume. Coming off a three-game series, this lift should be fairly easy to recover from and not make them fatigued for their Tuesday game. Share on X

The second day of training is a strength-focused day with low volumes and high intensities. This day is the hardest to recover from, which is why we plan it the furthest out from game day—I want to leave as much time as possible to recover while still driving a strength stimulus throughout the year.  The last day of training prior to the weekend series will be low-volume plyos and med ball throws to try to create a potentiation effect for the series. This lift will also include a handful of auxiliary movements and oftentimes mobility as well.  

Since the day before was challenging to the CNS, the following day should not be very strenuous to allow time to recover for the upcoming series.  I would consider this the least important day of the week and it could be supplemented with some potentiation work on game days and/or some auxiliary work sprinkled in after the ball games. On Thursdays, the guys should feel better leaving the weight room than when they came in—I make sure this lift isn’t more than 30 minutes.   

Designated hitters and Redshirts can have a slightly more aggressive training schedule to supplement the lower volume of gameplay they experience. 

I use this template for relief pitchers as well. They may have to play on any game day. With their unpredictable schedule, organizing their training in the same way as the position group is the most effective. Movement selection may change between these groups, but all else stays the same.  

Relief pitchers may have to play on any game day. With their unpredictable schedule, organizing their training in the same way as the position group is the most effective. Share on X

Tuesday starters will have a lower body, power-focused day on Monday. For these pitchers, the rest of the week can be organized in several different ways.  A strength-focused day could be used on that Wednesday after throwing, or a power-focused upper body. The schedule for the weekday starting pitchers is the least optimal and clear to organize, but it is also the smallest group—for the pool of players that may land in the Tuesday starter group at some point, communication with the athletes is crucial to see what schedule they feel better on.  Most of the time, the Tuesday starter will just see action as their total game load for the week—and, on rare occasions, they may throw a couple of innings on a Saturday or Sunday as well. It is hard to plan for this in advance on my side, as this will be an “as-needed” decision from our coaching staff. 

Weekend Starters 

The group of pitchers I work with like to train upper-body as far away from hard-throwing as possible.  This leaves us to train lower body, closer to their start.  

So, with this group, our first day of the week is the total body, strength-focused day. Wednesday is an upper body day with an emphasis on power, and Thursday is a lower body day with an emphasis on power. Volumes on both Wednesday and Thursday are low-to-moderate, with each lift typically taking about 30-40 minutes. 

The group of pitchers I work with like to train upper-body as far away from hard-throwing as possible. This leaves us to train lower body, closer to their start. Share on X 

 

Post-Game Considerations] 

A common trend in baseball sports performance is to lift the weekend starters the same day they throw, putting their hardest weight room session right after their time on the mound. This seems like an effective strategy, but it can be hard to implement with the constraints of college athletics and the lack of access to facilities while traveling.  

Many strength coaches at small schools do not travel with their teams, which creates implementation and accountability issues. While playing home games this strategy could be viable; typically, however, these constraints will not allow for the routine use of this strategy. 

A common trend in baseball is to lift the starters the same day they throw, putting their hardest weight room session post-game. This seems like an effective plan, but can be hard to implement with the constraints of college athletics. Share on X

The use of post-game mobility training for both the starting and relief pitcher groups may be effective. As we have seen in literature, pitchers may experience significant decreases in shoulder internal rotation and elbow extension (McGraw, 2019). A post-game arm care program that includes exercises to regain ROM in the shoulder and elbow a few hours after a game may be of value. A short bout of weight training targeting athletes’ deficiencies or strengths may be effective as well, especially for the Friday and Saturday starters.   

The other consideration is comparing what is more effective:  

• Is it better to train a pitcher after their most stressful bout of throwing and work to consolidate the stressful stimulus?  

• Or, is it better to allow 24-72+ hours of recovery (depending on what day the starter threw during the weekend) and then train hard in the weightroom, maybe pushing harder than could have been achieved after intense bout of throwing?  

Final Thoughts 

For coaches, organizing quality sports performance training for athletes in-season will always be an ever-evolving process. This style of organizing training has showed promise with our team and there have been positive increases in strength and power—the more exciting piece, however, is the buy-in that this organizational style has helped create.  

When you have your players executing different training programs in the same room at the same time, those can become slightly harder to coach. But once the athletes understand that I have organized the week in a way to be the best for their playing/throwing schedule, they appreciate it and become more bought in to the process. 

References 

McGraw, Michael H., et al. “Shoulder and Elbow Range of Motion Can Be Maintained in Major League Baseball Pitchers over the Course of the Season, Regardless of Pitching Workload.” Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 7, no. 2, 1 Feb. 2019, doi:10.1177/2325967118825066.  

We all know how this goes…you go through your twenties loving life, working out whenever you want and still seeing results even if you were out playing beer pong until 2am the night before. No worries—just chug a protein shake, then sweat it out while watching your veins pop.  

This high-flying stage of life has its benefits, but it’s not a long-term reality. In fact, those habits are why many men get stuck when it comes to losing weight and staying fit to compete in adult leagues or Masters competitions in their late thirties, forties, and beyond.  

You see, your body goes through cellular aging, and this takes a toll on the amount of macrophages to clean up, repair, and recycle bad cells to keep immunity strong and your body recovering at rates higher than the two burglars in Home Alone.  

If you also get married, have kids, and work at a stressful job…this all creates more havoc on your system. Most guys revert back to their “traditional” methods, which is like watching the Steelers still try to dominate the run game because that was their Old School mentality, yet the new ages have yet to show them that they have no offensive line to make it work.  

 Since your methods of getting lean and jacked just won’t work like they used to, here are some suggestions for staying conditioned to compete even as you get older. 

Conditioning Methods for the Athlete Over 35 

First, let’s recap a few types of cardio you have available. 

Cardiac Output Method 

Guidelines: 

• 30-60 minutes of steady-state conditioning. 

• Heart-rate 60-70% for the duration (or using the Maffetone Method (MAF) of ‘180 minus your age’ for more aerobically trained individuals). 

• Exercise Selection: Cyclical 

• Sample Programming—EMOM 40: 

• • Minute 1: 45s Easy run 

• • Minute 2: 45s Air Bike 

• • Minute 3: 45s Jump Rope 

• • Minute 4: 45s Med Ball Slams  

Video 1. Air Bike sprint as part of cardiac output method.  

Mixed Modality Conditioning

Guidelines: 

• 20-30 Minutes Conditioning 

• Heart-rate 70-80% of max 

• Exercise Selection: Cyclical & Kettlebell Complexes 

• Work/Rest: 1:1 – 1:3 

• Sample Programming—5 Rounds of: 

• • KB/DB Complex of: 5 Double KB Swings + 5 Double KB Cleans + 5 DB KB Thrusters 

• • Ski Erg x 12 Calories 

• • Rest 2:00 or until HR comes down to 110 

Video 2. Kettlebell complex in mixed modality conditioning. 

High-Intensity Intervals 

High-Intensity Intervals aim to use a variety of sustainable exercises with incomplete bouts of rest after each round. The intent is to stimulate higher oxygen utilization and improve the aerobic abilities of fast-twitch fibers. 

High-Intensity Intervals aim to use a variety of sustainable exercises with incomplete bouts of rest after each round. The intent is to stimulate higher oxygen utilization and improve the aerobic abilities of fast-twitch fibers. Share on X

Notice, I used the word sustainable. So when we think about movements that can be sustained for longer durations, we are not thinking about using locally demanding movements like a push-up or pull-ups that have high rates of peripheral fatigue. Most trainees will be limited by local muscle endurance, not their overall level of aerobic conditioning. 

When we select movements, they need to be movements you could sustain for 30-60 seconds without stopping. 

Guidelines: 

• Low resistance movements that can be sustained for the entire interval without stopping. 

• 15-20 minutes in total duration. 

• Incomplete rest intervals. 

• 1-2 sessions per week. 

• Sample Programming—5 Rounds of: 

• • Air Bike for Calories x 60s 

• • Russian KB Swings x 60s 

• • Rowing for Calories x 60s 

• • Box step-ups (unweighted) x 60s 

• • Rest x 60s 

This anaerobic systems work is for adult athletes who struggle to maintain a high level of output in the 60-90 second range—this work is the ability to sustain anaerobic energy production for extended periods of time. 

Video 3. Ski Erg sprint performed in high intensity intervals.  

Video 4. High intensity interval of kettlebell swings. 

Glycolytic Capacity Work 

This type stimulates an increase in buffering mechanism involved with allowing anaerobic glycolysis to continue. This work also increases glucose storage and utilization potential. A wide variety of exercises can be used, from sprints to plyometrics, but I tend to favor global patterns such as running, thruster, and burpees (if they can be done safely). 

Guidelines: 

•  Each set is 60-120 seconds. 

•  2-5 sets with incomplete rest intervals, 1-2 mins. 

• Goal should be complete fatigue. 

• Sample programming—Every 4:00 x 5-6 sets:

• • 3 Sandbag Cleans 

• •  9 Calorie Air Bike 

• • 12 No Push-up Burpees 

• • *Sets should NOT last longer than 2:00, otherwise volume prescriptions will need to be tailored. 

Video 5. Sandbag cleans in circuit. 

I also like doing work tires or sleds here.  

Video 6. Work tire flips for glycolytic capacity work. 

Know Your Health Profile 

Now that we know the cardio types you can pick from, the key is implementing the right ones at the right times!  

Let’s talk about what NOT to do first, since I see this more often. The average guy wanting to get into shape will inevitably clear time, get motivated with David Goggins, and then head to the gym to do things like 75 HARD, P90X or other high intensity interval-based workouts, adding in some basic strength exercises on machines.  

If the guy is a beginner, he might also hop on the elliptical for 40 minutes then do some machines for strength for 20 minutes.  

Now, I am one for saving time in the gym, so I am not here to say combining strength and cardio is wrong. But, you have to be strategic about it and also remember how you can use both in one type of workout, not having to dissociate cardio from strength.  

However, your first order of operation must include you taking a good, in-depth look at your health profile.  

Things to check: 

• Lipids 

• Stress 

• Sleep 

• Glucose 

• Free Testosterone  

• Free T4/T3 and Reverse T3 

• SHBG 

• LH and FSH 

• Estrogen  

• Cortisol  

• CRP 

• Vitamin D 

• Iron  

Now, you don’t need to be perfect across the board—and being down in some of these won’t “hurt” your conditioning efforts like some may claim—but trying to train hard and get results with high stress levels is like pouring gasoline on fire.  

You can’t expect a car to run empty, and while you can’t gain weight in a deficit, your body will hate you and feel like you should give up nearly every day trying to fight a fitness or fat-loss battle with your health not where it needs to be.  

You can’t expect a car to run empty, and while you can’t gain weight in a deficit, your body will hate you and feel like you should give up nearly every day trying to fight a fitness battle with your health not where it needs to be. Share on X

Issues from depression to mood swings to poor sleep to gut issues and food intolerances can unfold, which can lead to more issues with hormones…and this all affects metabolic rate and your ability to recover.   

Nothing there sounds good, so I would first cross off your health markers.  

Training Blocks and Programming 

From there, it’s a matter of setting a lifting routine based on your goals. I like focusing on “blocks” of training where I have: 

• Endurance Phase (higher reps, shorter rests, circuits, and nothing to failure.) 

• Hypertrophy Phase (8-10 reps, pushing to failure, longer rests and exercises with more stability.) 

• Max Strength Phase (3-5 reps, more sets and more compound lifts with accessory lifts to fill gaps.) 

• Power Phase (3-8 reps, lifting FAST and explosive, shorter reps, multiple sets, and aiming for peak intensity.) 

• Athlete Phase (Here, I do more plyometrics, coordination, stability, stamina, and power or add some glycolytic capacity work.)  

• REST and REPAIR (yes, key after 35 is to focus on adding these in so you can still get your body to rebalance, repair, and grow. These don’t need to be as long as the actual lifting phases.) 

Now that we have blocks, you can work your lifting days into a scheme that works for you. Some options include:   

1. Push/Pull/Legs 
2. Upper/Lower 
3. Full Body  

I like these three for most men between 35-55. There is no need for body part splits and your goals should match. As for your lifting days, it’s quite simple: spend 30-45 minutes on your strength work 3-4 days a week, totaling 2-2.5 hours.  

Next, fill in the gaps with your cardio and treat it as your side dish. For example, you lift full body workouts and do Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Then, Tuesday you can do a more cardiac output method for your day one cardio, then a more high intensity interval for day two.   

I would use this in either the endurance phase or power or athlete, but not so much in hypertrophy and max strength. 

Video 7.  Stationary sled training in conditioning programming. 

Saturday? Take the day off and try to mix in some stress-relieving parasympathetic work. Sunday plan a RUCK hike or GPP (general preparedness work like carries and sleds or mixed modality).  

Using this general outline, the total comes to 3-4 hours of training per week, provided your cardio is 30 minutes or less. This is much more sustainable and something you can be consistent with vs. body split days of 90-minute workouts doing straight sets.  

If I have guys who can ONLY work out a total of 3 days, then we will go full body routes and incorporate cardio into their training days as metabolic finishers.  The other option is to just have a block of 2 months strength then 1 month cardio, and then repeat. 

Either way you slice it, as long as you’re consistent and it works for you, this plan will help generate results. For the majority of guys I train, they feel less empowered when heading to the gym to walk the treadmill or watching the cooking channel while doing the elliptical. To me, that’s more masculine-energy draining, so I tend to use my gym-time cardio for efforts that elicit the benefit of toughness plus eliminate boredom!  

As long as you follow the principles I’ve outlined in this video, you will see how cardio work should not be avoided, but used more as a “side dish” to the entree of your weight training.  

Whatever route you choose, remember that your best way to make progress is through smart recovery. If you focus on healing your body, the results will be better and your cardio sessions become easier—and then, a way to even facilitate that recovery.  

As the role of physical education evolves, so too must the way we assess student progress. Traditional grading systems, which often focus on short-term performance metrics, fail to capture the broader goals of physical literacy and long-term athletic development (LTAD). A shift toward standards-based, development-focused assessments can lay the groundwork for lifelong fitness and athletic success.  

This article will explore how redefined assessments, integrated across K-12 physical education, can and should be the foundation of LTAD as this would ensure vertical alignment throughout school districts. As a high school strength and conditioning coach, I have seen firsthand the impact that thoughtful assessment can have on student development. My experience working with student athletes and general population PE students has highlighted both the strengths and shortcomings of a traditional grading model in PE.  

Too often, assessments prioritize short term outcomes, with one-time fitness test scores such as sprint “testing” 2-3 times per year and 1RM testing being viewed as the end-all be-all of athletic performance in physical education. Tracking meaningful progress daily in movement quality, athletic development, and physical literacy is a much better approach to consistent, measured progress through assessment in all K-12 physical education. By integrating specific key performance indicators (KPIs) rooted in long-term athletic development, we can create a system that not only benefits competitive athletes but also equips all students with the skills and confidence to lead active lives beyond the classroom.  

I have had the opportunity to build a 6-12th grade strength and speed program at Wilber-Clatonia Public schools. When I took over the position, it was evident that there were a lot of gaps in understanding and application of the movement skills necessary to improve athletic development and lifelong wellness. Upon noticing these gaps, I decided to research and build out specific KPIs relevant to the training goals we were putting in place for our program. The mission statement for my strength and speed program is: 

“Develop a system that provides long-term athletic development through high quality movement patterns, leading to improved strength, speed, and a reduction of injuries.”  

As I began to determine what our KPI’s would be, I have kept this mission at the forefront for each decision made in our program—I’ve even told the students, if we are doing something that does not point us back to this mission, I want them to question why we are doing it.  

Tracking meaningful progress daily in movement quality, athletic development and physical literacy is a much better approach to consistent, measured progress through assessment in all K-12 physical education, says @tuckplatt. Share on X

The Purpose of Assessment in Physical Education

At its core, the purpose of assessment in PE is to provide meaningful feedback to both students and teachers. This feedback should not merely reflect momentary performance, but should track the development of physical literacy—a student’s ability to perform a wide variety of movements competently and confidently.   

The ultimate goal is to cultivate habits that promote lifelong fitness and athletic capability, aligning directly with the principles of LTAD. 

Currently, many PE programs—including those in my area—still rely on assessments that prioritize generic fitness tests (ex. mile run, push up tests) or subjective participation grades. While these metrics offer some insight, the often fail to measure meaningful physical development. In my district, PE assessments largely consisted of standardized fitness tests administered only a few times per year. These tests often have a limited focus on skill acquisition, movement proficiency, or tracking progress over time. This traditional model does not account for individual growth or long-term athletic potential.  

At its core, the purpose of assessment in PE is to provide meaningful feedback to both students and teachers. This feedback should not merely reflect momentary performance, but should track the development of physical literacy. Share on X

Instead, by integrating key performance indicators (KPIs) such as sprint times, jump metrics, and relative strength measures, we can create a system that provides a clearer picture of a student’s movement competency and athletic development. This approach ensures that assessment aligns with both stat standards and LTAD principles, fostering a more effective and engaging PE experience for all students.  

Why We Need to Redefine Assessment

The current PE assessment models often overlook the holistic development of students, focusing on immediate outcomes such as speed, strength, or flexibility, without considering their long-term athletic potential. Assessments should encourage personal growth, focusing on progressive improvement rather than comparative performance against peers.  

By shifting toward a model that values progress, effort, and the development of foundational movement patterns, we can foster an environment where every student is prepared for lifelong athleticism. 

Standards-Based Assessments: The PRIME Approach 

A redefined assessment structure should be built on five core principles, summarized as the PRIME framework:  

1. Progress—Assessments should track student growth over time rather than focusing on static, one-time performance measures. By emphasizing progression in movement quality, strength, and speed, we can better reflect long-term athletic development. 
2. Realistic Goals—Goals should be developmentally appropriate and aligned with individual capabilities. Rather than setting arbitrary benchmarks, assessments should consider each student’s starting point and create achievable targets that foster confidence and motivation. 
3. Individualization—No two students are the same, and assessments should reflect that. By accounting for differences in biological maturity, training age, bodyweight, gender, and movement competency, we can ensure fair and meaningful evaluation for all students, not just those with natural athletic ability.  
4. Measurability—Assessments must be data-driven and objective, utilizing key performance indicators (KPIs) such as sprint times, jump metrics, and relative strength measures. This ensures transparency in tracking student progress while aligning with LTAD principles.  
5. Engagement—The assessment process should enhance, not hinder, student engagement. By making assessments interactive, gamified, and relevant to real world movement skills, we can foster a culture of enthusiasm for physical activity rather than anxiety over test results.  

By integrating the PRIME framework into K-12 physical education, we can shift from outdated grading models to a system that cultivates lifelong athletic development, confidence, and a deeper appreciation for movement. 

By accounting for differences in biological maturity, training age, bodyweight, gender, and movement competency, we can ensure fair and meaningful evaluation for all students, says @tuckplatt. Share on X

The PRIME framework is something I’ve developed over time through my experiences as a high school PE teacher/strength & speed coach. It is inspired by the shortcomings I’ve observed in traditional PE assessments, as well as best practices drawn from leading philosophies in athletic development, such as Tony Holler’s Feed the Cats approach, Tony Villani’s Game Speed curriculum, and the principles of Long-Term Athletic Development (LTAD).  

In working with both general PE students and competitive athletes, I noticed that assessments often failed to reflect meaningful progress, lacked individualization, and did little to keep students engaged. Over time, I began incorporating measurable performance indicators, into my own assessments, while also ensuring that goals were realistic and individualized. This shift led to higher student engagement, more meaningful progress, and better alignment with LTAD principles.  Additionally, I’ve drawn insights from strength and conditioning coaches who emphasize data-driven, athlete-first coaching, using KPIs in sprint times, jump metrics, relative strength, velocity-based training, etc. Seeing the impact of these methods in sports performance settings reinforced my belief that similar principles could and should be applied to physical education assessments.  

The PRIME framework represents a synthesis of ideas, ensuring that assessments are not just about grading but about helping students develop a lifelong foundation of movement competence and athleticism.  

In working with both general PE students and competitive athletes, I noticed that assessments often failed to reflect meaningful progress, lacked individualization, and did little to keep students engaged, says @tuckplatt. Share on X

Fundamental Movement Assessments in K-12 PE 

Developing fundamental movement skills—the basic abilities like running, jumping, and balancing—is key to setting up students for long-term athletic success. These skills are the building blocks that students will refine and apply in more advanced physical activities as they grow.  

• Elementary School (K-5): Focus on fun, play-based activities that help kids learn basic movements. Informal assessments, like watching how students run or jump, provide a low-pressure way to track progress. 

• Middle School (6-8): At this stage, students start formal assessments to check how well they perform fundamental movements with good form. The goal is to track personal improvement rather than comparing them to others. 

• High School (9-12): In high school, movement assessments become more advanced, integrating with strength and conditioning programs. Students should now be able to apply these fundamental skills in more complex athletic situation.

PE teachers and coaches need to develop a system of collecting data on student performance, whether that is through a folder of compiled student data using Google Sheets or utilizing software for program distribution and data collection such as Teambuildr, Rock Daisy, or others. Comparing data across a student’s physical education and athletic career is essential in order to utilize LTAD principles in K-12 physical education.  

This assessment ensures proper movement mechanics across essential movement patterns for long-term athletic development and general physical preparedness. The assessment is scored out of 10 points, with each skill rated as: 

• 0 = Needs Improvement 

• 1 = Proficient 

Essential Movement Skills (10 Points Total) 

1. Squat—Full range, stable posture, and proper depth. 
2. Hinge—Proper hip hinge pattern without excessive knee flexion. 
3. Push—Upper body pressing ability (e.g., push-up form). 
4. Pull—Ability to perform an effective pulling movement (e.g., pull-up or row). 
5. Jump/Land—Ability to jump and land with proper knee tracking and posture. 
6. Sprint—Acceleration and top-end speed mechanics. 
7. Changing Speeds—Smooth deceleration and re-acceleration mechanics. 
8. Changing Directions—Ability to cut/change direction with control. 
9. Throwing—Coordination and power in upper-body throwing mechanics. 
10. Carrying—Core stability and posture under load (e.g., farmer’s carry). 

How to Conduct the Assessment in a Class Setting

Class Size Consideration: 

• Stations-Based Setup: Set up 5-6 stations around the gym or weight room. Have students rotate every 3-4 minutes to complete all movements. 

• Peer & Coach Assessment: Pair students to assess each other using a simple checklist, with the coach confirming scores at each station. 

• Video Analysis (Optional): Use video recordings for students to self-evaluate movement quality. 

When to Perform the Assessment? 

• Beginning of the School Year (Baseline Testing) 

• Mid-Semester Checkpoint (Progress Evaluation) 

• End of Semester (Final Assessment & Growth Tracking) 

Frequency: 2-3 times per semester for tracking progress and adjusting training. 

Key Performance Indicators in PE 

When designing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for movement assessment, the goal is to provide clear, measurable standards at every stage of development. These benchmarks ensure that students are progressing appropriately based on their age, ability level, and athletic goals. 

Benchmarks for elementary, middle, and high school must be created based on long-term athletic development (LTAD) principles. These standards take into account: 

• Growth & Maturation—Younger students focus on fundamental movement skills, while older students refine their technique and build strength. 

• Skill Progression—KPIs start with basic movement competency (e.g., squatting properly) and evolve into performance-based targets (e.g., relative strength in high school). 

• Injury Prevention—Proper movement patterns are emphasized before introducing heavier resistance or higher-speed drills. 

• Transfer to Sport & Life—These skills benefit all students, whether they pursue competitive athletics or just aim for lifelong fitness. 

KPI’s give measurable goals at every stage, making it easy to track progress. 

• Elementary (K-5): Simple KPIs focus on basic movements like running or jumping, measuring improvement in a fun and inclusive way. 

• Middle School (6-8): KPIs become more structured, focusing on students’ technique and personal bests, helping them see their growth. 

• High School (9-12): KPIs get more advanced, tying in with strength and conditioning goals like measuring speed, momentum, and relative strength. 

Who Are These Standards For? 

• General HS PE Students—The benchmarks ensure all students develop fundamental movement skills regardless of athletic background. 

• Competitive Athletes—While these KPIs apply to all students, competitive athletes should strive for higher levels within each category. Coaches can also adjust expectations based on sport-specific demands. 

In a typical high school PE strength and conditioning class, students may range from beginner to advanced. The goal is to progressively challenge each student based on their current ability while ensuring proper movement mechanics remain the foundation. 

Connecting Movement Assessments and KPIs 

Fundamental movement assessments provide the foundation, while KPIs give clear goals to track progress. Together, they ensure that students are consistently developing their physical abilities across all grade levels. 

• Elementary: Students learn basic skills with KPIs that track participation. 

• Middle School: Students refine these skills with KPIs that focus on improvement. 

• High School: Movement assessments and KPIs prepare students for athletic and fitness goals. 

*This combined approach helps PE serve as the base for LTAD and keeps things aligned from kindergarten through high school.* 

Relative Strength Standards: A Key Metric for High School Students 

 In high school, relative strength—strength relative to body weight—becomes a critical component of athletic development. Unlike absolute strength, relative strength better predicts athletic performance and reduces injury risks. Implementing relative strength standards allows for customized training programs tailored to each student, ensuring balanced development and long-term success.  

Many high school male athletes focus on lifting the heaviest possible weight, often prioritizing absolute strength over relative strength. Shifting their mindset requires strategic communication, education, and competitive engagement. This will take intentional effort and data collection to change the mindset of your students. Prioritize making visuals showing relative strength leaderboards. Relate relative strength to injury prevention and try to gamify the process as much as possible by tying this to your strength standards to help athletes focus on progression rather than just comparing raw numbers.  

Relate relative strength to injury prevention and try to gamify the process as much as possible by tying this to your strength standards to help athletes focus on progression rather than just comparing raw numbers. Share on X

Physical Education as the Foundation of LTAD 

PE is uniquely positioned to serve as the foundation for LTAD. By embedding progressive assessments that focus on the quality of movement patterns, physical literacy, and personalized growth, PE can prepare students not only for sports participation but for lifelong fitness. All stakeholders—teachers, coaches, and administrators—need to view PE as the cornerstone of athletic development, ensuring that assessments are vertically aligned and supportive of long-term goals. 

Success in PE should be redefined as personal growth, not merely athletic achievement. By focusing on the development of physical literacy and preparation for lifelong fitness, we can foster a more inclusive, motivating environment for students of all abilities. Standard-based assessments using KPIs and relative strength measures provide a holistic approach, promoting progress at every stage of a student’s development. 

Redefining Success & Assessment 

Redefining assessment in K-12 physical education isn’t just about numbers, standards, or vertical alignment—it’s about real impact on real students. I see the need for this shift every day in the weight room and on the field. When assessment focuses on key performance indicators (KPIs) tied to long-term athletic development (LTAD) rather than arbitrary fitness tests, students actually see how training translates to their performance. 

For the athletes I coach, this approach would mean: 

1. Fewer injuries—because they’re building relative strength and movement competency, not just lifting heavier. 
2. More engagement—because they can track progress in meaningful ways, like speed, jump height, and strength-to-bodyweight ratios. 
3. Greater confidence—because they see themselves get stronger, faster, and more powerful, whether they’re varsity athletes or just working toward lifelong fitness. 

By redefining assessment, we shift the focus from checking boxes to building better movers, competitors, and lifelong athletes. If we implement this system across all grade levels, we’re not just improving PE—we’re changing the trajectory of students’ athletic potential and overall health for the long run.  

Recently, I realized that I may have reached the halfway point of my coaching career. The thought made me sick to my stomach. 

20 years I’ve been doing this—this amazing, heartbreaking, joyous, exhausting, energizing thing. But the track coach with 40 years of experience is rare, so I began to wonder: am I already coming into the second turn? I hope not, but nothing in the future is ever promised and fate or circumstance could take it all away from me whether I’m ready to let it go or not. The very idea of ever not being a track coach feels like a funeral.  

Since that moment, I’ve been trying to put my thoughts together and reflect on what these 20 years have taught me. Every time I think about it, I get dizzy. I’m so often focusing on what’s next that it can be hard to think back on what’s already been. But I also get the sense that if the future is to yield meaningful significance, I’d better try to pin down what the past has meant. It’s awful hard to run the second half of a race harder than the first, but I’m sure going to try.  

I’ve spent a lot of time making sense of the last two decades and I’ve arrived at two certainties: 

1. This sport has utterly changed my life. 
2. I never want people to stop calling me Coach. 

If the future is to yield meaningful significance, I’d better try to pin down what the past has meant. It’s awful hard to run the second half of a race harder than the first, but I’m sure going to try, says @TrackCoachTG. Share on X

How It Started 

In the early 2000s, the phrase “mental health” wasn’t yet part of the American lexicon, so I didn’t know I was depressed. I played football and basketball, but by sophomore year the shifting of social circles and a unique brand of millennial-teen cruelty left me feeling unseen and alone. Then, someone encouraged me to join the track team. I know now what my coaches saw, because I’ve seen the same thing in the hallways at school: those tall, lanky kids who are already decently athletic football and basketball players are a no-brainer fit for giving track and field a try.  

Mike Nesbitt is a Mighty Mouse of man who eats, sleeps, and breathes track and field. His dad and uncle were both track coaches. Mike was a D2 collegiate runner. At 15, I’d never met anyone who cared about running the way he did. I didn’t get it. I hadn’t had him as a teacher yet, but Coach Nesbitt approached me in the hallway and urged me to consider track and field. I’d never run before.  

“It will help you stay in shape for football and basketball,” he said. “Who knows, you might just end up being a high jumper and a long jumper?”  

I wasn’t sold at first, but Rich Syring—a gruff anomaly who was both my hard-nosed football coach and my kind, gentle creative writing teacher—was also on the coaching staff. Looking back, I wonder if Coach Syring saw an athletic kid with a case of the gloomies and thought physical activity in the spring would be better for me than going home and sitting idly for three months.  

The storybook version would probably read that track and field suddenly became the passion I didn’t even know I had, that I became an all-state athlete, and that I beat my struggles with mental health. But, here’s the truth: track was good, I was average, and I’m still fighting. But track did change my life, even if only in the smallest of ways—I had never considered running track, and now I was on the team. It was the first domino. Funny how so often teachers and coaches are the people who nudge the first one over. 

I stayed on the team for the rest of high school. By that time, enough successive dominoes had fallen that I knew I wanted to be a teacher and a coach, but I had no idea I’d get my first crack at coaching so soon. In the same way he invited me to join the team as a sophomore, Mike invited me to join the staff as a college student. I was going to school locally, and he needed help with hurdlers. I volunteered a couple times a week, coaching kids who had been my teammates the year before. I was 18. I’ve been coaching ever since. 

Affecting Eternity 

I think the reason I share this history is because I doubt Mike Nesbitt or Rich Syring knew they were altering the entire course of the rest of my life when they invited me out for the team; or, again when they offered me a place on the coaching staff. If you’re a teacher or a coach, there’s no telling how many people’s lives you’ve changed. Most will never tell you. Some don’t even know. But the reality is that in this role, we impact kids’ lives every single day. Hopefully, more often than not, it’s in a positive way.  

If you’re a teacher or a coach, there’s no telling how many people’s lives you’ve changed. Most will never tell you. Some don’t even know. But the reality is that in this role, we impact kids’ lives every single day. Share on X

There’s a poster with an inspirational quote from Henry Adams that you’ve probably come across at some point in your life (or at least some paraphrased version of it).  

I don’t know if Adams ever ran the quarter, but his insight applies to coaches, too. Because Mike Nesbitt was my coach, I became a coach. Because I became a coach, the things I’ve learned from him have been passed on to hundreds of other kids. If any of those kids improved as athletes or grew as people from the workouts I wrote or the lessons they learned, it came from Mike too. And if they pass those methods and values on….well, you get the idea. The same is true of every mentor I’ve ever had. I wonder who their mentors were, who else they were coached by, how far back eternity goes. And with an eye on the horizon, I can’t help but wonder if any of the kids I’ve worked with in the last 20 years might one day join the coaching ranks. Coaches affect eternity.  

With an eye on the horizon, I can’t help but wonder if any of the kids I’ve worked with in the last 20 years might one day join the coaching ranks. Coaches affect eternity, says @TrackCoachTG. Share on X

Lessons Learned 

When I first started helping out at Bay City Western, I remember feeling privileged to coach at my alma mater. I had proudly worn the brown and gold as an athlete, and since I never became a UPS driver, those years coaching with Mike and Rich would be the last time I donned those colors. There, I learned the importance of building a program kids want to be part of.  

We designed workouts that were challenging but fun, a concept that was novel to me at the time. I don’t think I’d ever equated “hard work” with “enjoyment” before, but a seed had been planted that I now recognize in my current coaching: the ideal of gamifying training. Many of my favorite coaches today—people like Tony Holler, for example—are ones who have found a way to make practice the best part of a kid’s day. Kids want to be challenged, and if we can do that in meaningful ways while measuring what matters, it follows that kids will have fun. If you don’t believe me, try timing sprints in practice and creating a sprint leaderboard. Your kids will literally beg you to let them keep trying to beat their best time.  

Try timing sprints in practice and creating a sprint leaderboard. Your kids will literally beg you to let them keep trying to beat their best time, says @TrackCoachTG. Share on X

In those first years of coaching, I also learned (though maybe not at the time) how important it is to have the right people on your coaching staff. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what expertise someone has; if they’re not the right person for the kids, or they don’t jive with the rest of the staff, or their vibes aren’t right for the culture you’re hoping to build in your program, it’s not likely to work in the long run. On the flip side, I would gladly take a coach on my staff whose track and field knowledge is limited, as long as they are willing to learn and are a source of positivity and encouragement for our athletes. Every good program starts with good people.  

Everywhere I’ve ever coached, I’ve learned something new.  

 After college, I took my first full-time teaching job in Benton Harbor, Michigan—for the first time in my life, I saw firsthand the struggles that face inner-city schools. It was eye-opening, both from the perspective of a teacher and also as a coach. With limited resources, we made the most of what we had, but many of our athletes lacked the appropriate clothes, shoes, equipment, nutrition, support, or transportation to train and compete consistently.  

This was also my first time working inside a sprint-heavy program, and I had a chance to work with tremendously-gifted athletes. I coached two hurdlers—a boy and a girl—who qualified for state finals in the 300 meter hurdles. The young man ended up finishing fourth. Throughout the course of that season, I remember feeling frustrated: I had an idea of the training I wanted our athletes to do and how hard I wanted them to work, but neither one of those athletes ever made it to a full week of practice. Looking back, I think this may have actually been a good thing: I was almost certainly planning to overtrain them.  

We will not be outworked, I thought.  

But their inconsistent attendance meant that they were rested, recovered, and able to perform their best at the end of the season. Now, 14 years later, I can see I had cats. I definitely wasn’t feeding them, but they also weren’t letting me drown them in a sack. 

At my next stop, in Monticello, Illinois, I worked with an IHSA Hall of Fame football coach named Cully Welter. Despite our vastly different demeanors—Cully is a no-nonsense, year-round-shorts-wearing, detail-obsessed grinder—I loved working with him and consider him a friend and mentor to this day. There was a business-like culture on the team where the kids knew they were there to do a job and do it well. At meets, we would bring a shovel painted with our school’s logo and the all-caps phrase “DO WORK.” That mentality started at the top, was part of everything we did, and had clearly been established over years of consistent expectations.  

I also learned about thematic programming. It was the first time I can remember hearing the terms “max speed” and “speed endurance” and learned the importance of being intentional with the organization of both sprint training and strength training, day to day, week to week, and over the course of a season to allow athletes to peak at the right time. Before then, I always had a training plan, but it was haphazard, without rhyme or reason. Honestly, just a list of workouts that seemed hard enough to get kids in shape. This intentionality was novel to me, and though my training plans today look a lot different than in 2015, my workouts are grouped thematically, spaced appropriately, and geared toward championship-season success.    

My last year in Illinois, as the girls’ head coach at a school of just over 500 students, we won both a conference and sectional championship as the smallest school in the field. The excitement of that sectional meet, where we qualified for state finals in nine different events, was like nothing I’d ever experienced before and a day I’ll never forget. 

The list goes on, and I keep learning. 

As coaches we’re faced with new challenges all the time. It’s probably fair to say that for many coaches, no greater challenge has come our way in recent years than the Covid-19 pandemic. And while that time-warp era was unequivocally horrible and difficult for countless reasons, a funny thing happened: in isolation, my circle of influences grew larger.  

If I reach a point where I feel like I’ve got nothing left to learn, I hope I’m wise enough to hang up my stopwatch, says @TrackCoachTG. Share on X

Through social media, virtual clinics, the growing popularity of podcasts, and the magic of Zoom, I connected with coaches all over the world in ways I never thought possible. I’ve made friends I’ve never met in person and learned things I’m not sure I would have learned otherwise. I’m a better coach now because of it. I don’t know what other challenges I’ll face for the rest of my coaching career, but I know I’m committed to continuing to learn, forever chasing the ideal of being a better coach this season than I was the year before. If I reach a point where I feel like I’ve got nothing left to learn, I hope I’m wise enough to hang up my stopwatch.   

As American author William S. Burroughs puts it, “When you stop growing you start dying.” I want to live forever. 

The Moments We Live For

To a non-sports person, it can sometimes be hard to understand why we, as coaches, pour so much time and energy into something like this. At the end of the day, as important as the sport of track and field is to me (and probably to many of you reading this) it’s still a game. It doesn’t determine anyone’s value as a person, and the results are far from life or death. When you add up the hours spent planning, making meet entries, doing administrative work, and attending meets, and then throw in the money we spend out of our own pockets and compare it with the paycheck, it’s not a financially sound pursuit.  

But anyone who has ever coached, especially at the high school level, knows that it’s never about the paycheck. It’s about moments.  

I can remember the first time I had a hurdler qualify for state finals: the elation in her face as she jumped up and down across the infield before leaping into my arms for a tearful hug. I can remember the spontaneous singing and dancing in the Wendy’s lobby on the way home from an invitational. I can remember consoling tearful young men who had learned of the unexpected passing of a close friend from another school. The pride I felt when an athlete fell on a hurdle at a big meet, only to pick herself up and finish the race. The disappointment of dropping a baton in the 4×200 at state finals, followed by the excitement of bouncing back less than an hour later to medal in the 4×100 with a school-record-breaking performance. The joy of winning our first state championship. The conversations with other coaches. The bus rides. The overwhelming feeling that the whole of what we do is so much greater than the sum of its parts.  

Anyone who has ever coached, especially at the high school level, knows that it’s never about the paycheck. It’s about moments, says @TrackCoachTG. Share on X

 These are the moments we live for as coaches. And, if we’re viewing this thing through the appropriate lens, we begin to see clearly that we’re in the business of creating moments. Athletes remember the experiences they have in sports, good and bad. They might not remember the outcome of a specific race or who they faced at a dual meet in April, but they’ll remember the feeling of being part of something. They will learn—knowingly or not—that sports are often an avenue for the lessons that serve us in life: lessons about dedicating yourself to something, about working hard to improve, about being a teammate, about resilience. They’ll learn about the joy of victory and the frustration of defeat, and how to deal with both. 

My wife, who is one of those non-sports persons, has stood next to me at our home invitational and watched high school kids—who look like grown adults—run over to me with the enthusiasm of a six-year-old wanting to show off the spaceship they just built out of Legos. “Did you see me!?”  

Each practice, each meet, each race is a chance for a kid to feel seen. It’s something so many kids need. It’s something I needed. Even a non-sports person can find the value in that. I think a lot about a simple statement she has made to me on a handful of occasions: “What you’re doing is good.” 

When I think about *good,* I think about the noun, not the adjective. Sure, we do good things. But more importantly, we *do good,* says @TrackCoachTG. Share on X

When I think about good, I think about the noun, not the adjective. Sure, we do good things. But more importantly, we do good. If we take this responsibility seriously, we strive to do good in the world, to embody good, and to teach our athletes to focus on the good around them. I think this mindset is crucial for this generation of kids, and I hope they carry it with them beyond the walls of this school. There’s an awful lot in this world that isn’t very good. It can be easy to dwell on the negative. But good is everywhere if we are willing to look for it—and if and when we find it, we celebrate like hell. 

New Year, Same Mission 

So here I am, in the spring of 2025. With the same cyclical certainty of the moon phases or the spring equinox, on the second Monday of March, I’ll start another track season, just like I have every year since I was 15. This new season will be my 21st as a coach.  

The anticipation and uncertainty that precedes a new season is wild. I know what we have on our team, but it’s a long road to June and so much can happen between now and then. So little is in our control. For the next 83 days, I’ll be reminding myself as much as I remind my kids: show up, be present, stay the course, control what we can, let go of the rest. And—most importantly—enjoy the ride. The days are long, but the years are short, and this season will be over in the blink of an eye. Sadly, so will their high school athletic careers. I know it’s true, because I blinked and now I’m almost 40-years-old. And if I blink again, I’ll be retired. There’s a lot I hope to do before then.  

I believe every kid deserves to have a great coach, and I want the ones in our school to have the opportunity to be a part of something exceptional says @TrackCoachTG. Share on X

I believe every kid deserves to have a great coach, and I want the ones in our school to have the opportunity to be a part of something exceptional. There will be wins and losses, championship celebrations, and, almost certainly, there will be hardships and heartache. Our legacy is defined by what we leave behind for others, and I hope I can leave this program better than I found it—and, then, hand it off to someone who will make it better still. 

But more than anything, in the chaotic whirlwind of struggle and joy, I hope that the kids I’m working with today will have moments and memories they can hang on to forever. I’ve collected quite a few of those treasures over the years and I know my collection will keep growing. When I cross the finish line, this collection will be all that remains. I hope it will be enough. It’s true that someday I won’t be coaching. Neither will you. But even after our final seasons end, I have to wonder: will we ever stop being “Coach”? 

Power is essential for athletic performance, underpinning movements such as sprinting, jumping, and change of direction2. I’m fortunate to have access to both the 1080 Sprint and Keiser machines, allowing me to track my players’ power outputs in real time. The athletes who rank highest in relative and absolute power on these machines are also the same ones who leave defenders grasping at air or who dominate collisions.  

In my squad of 40+ professional rugby players, the 10 who have played at the international level consistently rank near the top in power output, making it clear that to compete at the highest level, elite physical qualities are just as crucial as technical skill. The inverse is also true. Without disrespecting the athletes, it’s evident that those who lack the necessary physical qualities—whether due to genetics or a poor attitude toward physical development—will struggle to reach the next level. No matter how skilled they are, they need a certain level of power and strength for elite competition.  

The athletes who rank highest in relative and absolute power on @1080motion & @KeiserFitness are also the same ones who leave defenders grasping at air or who dominate collisions, says @jonobward. Share on X

Maximising power output requires an understanding of the relationship between force and velocity. Cormie et al.3 describe power as the product of force and velocity, meaning that improvements in either quality will improve power output. The force-velocity curve tells us that that as movement velocity increases, the capacity to produce force decreases—which emphasizes the need for a training approach that develops both maximal strength and high-speed force production3. We also need to consider that the ability to generate force quickly is controlled by the neuromuscular system’s capacity to recruit motor units, synchronise firing patterns, and optimise muscle-tendon interactions.  

Let’s take for example two international level rugby players on my team. Athlete #1 squats 200kg like it is nothing and has a 1RM Bench Press of 180kg. Athlete #2 has a 1RM squat of 180kg  and maxes out on bench at 150kg. We can safely say Athlete #1 is stronger. Yet if you ask all the players in the squad who they hate to tackle, it is Athlete #2. His ability to go from zero to 100% is superhuman. When he gets the ball, he is able to use all his force in the shortest amount of time. So whilst ‘gym strong’ is cool, the transfer to the field can be limited if we don’t train correctly. 

Targeting Power in Training 

The stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) is a critical factor in power development. This mechanism, present in plyometric and ballistic movements, allows stored elastic energy from an eccentric contraction to be utilised in the subsequent concentric phase, increasing overall force production4. Most land-based sports rely heavily on SSC efficiency, making it a fundamental component of power training practices. 

Training methods aimed at improving power typically involve a combination of resistance training, ballistic exercises, plyometrics, and weightlifting movements. Each modality influences power production differently: 

• Traditional, free weight strength training increases maximal force output. 

• Ballistic exercises reduce the deceleration phase and promote rapid force production. 

• Plyometrics optimise neuromuscular efficiency through the SSC.  

More recent innovations, such as pneumatic resistance systems, introduce a unique method of developing power by providing consistent resistance across the movement, eliminating the effect of inertia and momentum, which impacts free weight resistance training modalities7. 

Keiser Fitness is probably the most well-known producer of pneumatic fitness machines in the USA, and these are the machines that I use with my team. 

The Role of Gravity and Inertia in Pneumatic Resistance 

A key distinction between pneumatic machines and free weights is the way resistance is applied. In traditional resistance training, gravity directly influences the resistance (i.e., dumbbell, barbell, or weight stack), meaning that inertia and momentum play significant roles in movement execution. When lifting free weights or using weight stacks, the mass must be accelerated against gravity (overcoming the inertia), and momentum can increase as the lift progresses. This momentum can reduce the effort required later in the movement and necessitates an extended deceleration phase at the top of the lift to control the load. 

Pneumatic resistance, on the other hand, is independent of gravity because the resistance is generated by compressed air rather than mass. This eliminates the inertia and momentum effects seen when lifting free weights, allowing for a more consistent application of force throughout the movement. Without the need to decelerate as significantly at the end of the lift, athletes can maintain higher velocities for longer through the exercise, which create unique neuromuscular and velocity-specific adaptations6,9. The low-mass and low-inertia resistance of pneumatic systems also allows for greater velocities in the early portion of movement, whereas free weights are limited here due to their inherent inertia6,7,9.   

Pneumatic resistance eliminates the inertia and momentum effects seen when lifting free weights, allowing for a more consistent application of force throughout the movement, says @jonobward. Share on X

Although pneumatic resistance has unique benefits, I don’t program it in the off-season since some players don’t have access to the machines, and it’s good to mix things up when they go home. I also don’t include training with pneumatic resistance in the preseason—in this 6-8 week block we have 4-6 gym sessions per week, plus running, off-feet conditioning, and rugby sessions. Instead, I keep the Keiser tools in my deck of cards to play later. 

When I do bring the method in, it’s either on a lower body day—contrasted with a heavy lift, some jumps, or in some cases a tri-set—or on a power day (two days before game day). On power days, I’ll typically pair the Keiser Squat with jumps (vertical emphasis) and the Keiser Runner with sleds or the 1080 (horizontal emphasis). 

Most of my athletes love the Keiser machines because they require minimal technical skill and provide live feedback. If I’m using GymAware on barbells and asking players to clean or high pull, technique plays a big role in power output. Sometimes athletes start chasing numbers and their technique becomes questionable. That’s where the Keiser is great, it levels the playing field by taking technique out of the equation; in my opinion, this makes it a safer option for building weight room competition. 

Most of my athletes love the @KeiserFitness machines because they require minimal technical skill and provide live feedback, says @jonobward. Share on X

Pneumatic Resistance vs. Other Training Modalities 

Pneumatic resistance offers several practical benefits, particularly due to the ability to maintain constant resistance regardless of movement speed. This feature decreases the deceleration phase commonly associated with free weight training, allowing for the development of high-velocity movements over a long range5,9. Additionally, pneumatic systems minimise momentum effects, which are prevalent in traditional resistance training and can decrease force output and neuromuscular activation at certain phases of the lift6. If you think about a barbell high pull, the hardest part is getting the bar off the floor and building momentum through the first and second pull. Once at the end of that second pull, momentum takes over, and at that point your arms are just guiding the bar. 

That’s where the Keiser Squat is different. Frost et al.5 found that peak movement velocities were significantly higher with pneumatic systems compared to free weights, especially at lighter loads. The key difference? With a Keiser, you accelerate throughout almost the entire movement because momentum isn’t doing the work for you. 

Another study, this time comparing pneumatic and flywheel resistance training in professional handball players8, found both training modalities significantly improved power, throwing speed, and torque. Flywheel training, however, led to slightly greater hypertrophy due to its eccentric overload. The authors did state that the advantage of pneumatic training was that it improved performance without the additional fatigue incurred by flywheel training, which they suggest is useful when wanting to improve performance whilst limiting fatigue. 

Practical Applications for Coaches 

The integration of pneumatic resistance into training programs is promising, as research shows pneumatic resistance results in greater velocity and power outputs at lighter loads6 compared to free weights. As a coach, this is generally an area we call speed strength, as shown in Figure 2.  

Load Selection

Before programming a Keiser training block, I always run a load-power profile with my athletes. I typically incorporate this into a bye week or the first session of a new block to establish individualised training loads. 

For larger athletes, the profile on the Keiser Squat consists of 3 reps at 175lbs, 200lbs, 225lbs, 250lbs, and 275lbs, while the biggest players start at 225lbs and progress up to 300lbs or 325lbs. Lighter athletes typically begin at 150-175lbs and finish between 225-250lbs. The load at which an athlete achieves peak power generally becomes their working resistance for that training block. Sometimes I will program lighter loads to work the speed strength quality. 

When profiling on the Keiser Runner, the athletes still execute 3 reps but each start with a resistance of 150lbs and increase in 20lb increments. In my experience, most athletes reach their peak power between 190lbs and 210lbs, so there’s no need for larger 25lb jumps or excessive loading, such as 300 lbs, which wouldn’t be practical for this movement. 

I use this profiling method because it is efficient for large squads, especially when limited to one Keiser Squat or Runner. While the Keiser system does offer an automated force-velocity profiling tool, which gives the athlete their optimum resistance for power, it does take 2-3 minutes to complete. In contrast, my method allows me to run five athletes through a set in the same time it would take to complete a single profile on the machine, making it a practical and effective alternative. 

Squat Height 

I use a half-squat height, as most actions in rugby that require fast velocity contractions—think accelerating, sprinting, and jumping—occur at shallower joint angles rather than in parallel or deep squat positions.  

Sets & Reps

When programming on the Keiser Squat or Keiser Runner, I typically stick to 3-4 sets, as I find that beyond this, the quality of power output declines noticeably. In terms of reps, I consider 3 to be the minimum and often use the percentage drop-off method to regulate volume and maintain power output. One of the key advantages of Keiser machines is they provide feedback for every rep. On the A300 system (which is what I have), the display screen shows the best power score and then tracks each subsequent rep as a percentage of that max output. This allows for real-time performance monitoring and precise control over fatigue. 

When programming on the @KeiserFitness Squat or Keiser Runner, I typically stick to 3-4 sets, as I find that beyond this, the quality of power output declines noticeably, says @jonobward. Share on X

Video 1. Athlete performs 3 reps on the Keiser A300 Squat system. 

Video 2. Live feedback on the data screens from the Keiser Squat. 

I’ve experimented with both 10% and 20% drop-off thresholds in programming. With a 10% drop-off, athletes typically complete 5-8 reps before their output falls below 90% of their best effort. However, when using a 20% drop-off (where the athlete stops once they reach 80% of peak power), some athletes have performed 15-20 reps, which is a significant volume! Because of this, I generally prefer 10% drop-offs to maintain high-intensity efforts without excessive fatigue. 

Exercise Flow 

With my group of professional rugby players, I use a combination of free weights, pneumatic resistance, and plyometrics to target the strength speed > power > speed strength > speed qualities. I program Olympic lifts (cleans and high pulls) between 60-80% 1RM to focus on rate of force development (RFD) and strength speed, followed by Keiser Squats/Runner at a resistance that elicits max power, and then plyometrics (which for this block is continuous hurdle jumps (50cm) with minimal ground contact time). 

I tend to program this as a tri-set, with 1-2 minutes rest between each exercise. I know there are some coaches out there who may find it best to just focus on one lift and juice it for what it’s worth, but my athletes and I love the feeling of surfing the velocity curve—and by the time athletes get to the jumps after cleaning and performing a set of explosive squats, they feel elastic! 

Creating Competition to Improve Power 

I cannot say that the improvements seen on a Keiser Squat or Runner transfer directly to the rugby field. All I can do is try and move the needle to improve my athlete’s relative power. One way I do this is by creating competition among my group of athletes. In Figure 2, you will see a table that is posted in the gym next to the Keiser Squat. Players can compare themselves to their teammates, and this provides external motivation. This table also keeps athletes accountable and serves as internal motivation. 

Generally, my backs will have better relative scores (watts per kilogram) compared to my forwards, whilst my forwards will have better absolute scores. For my backs, who weigh between 76-103kg, I consider anything over 40 w/kg as gold standard. My forwards, who weigh between 98-130kg, I consider anything over 37 w/kg as gold standard. This is not a pure science, just based on my observations. I will point out I have a forward, weighing 117kg, who has a relative score of 50. This guy is a coach’s dream.  

Case Study – Keiser Squat Technique and Influence on Peak Power

A common question my athletes ask is, “Which technique is best for maximising power?” While I had my suspicions, I wanted a science-backed answer—so I decided to run a test. 

I assessed 14 professional rugby players on the Keiser Squat to determine how different techniques influenced peak power output. Each athlete performed squats at a calibrated half-squat height, using a resistance that elicited their peak power (PMax) based on prior load-power profiling. The three techniques tested were: 

• Continuous rebound for 3 reps. 

• 3-second pause at the bottom for 3 reps. 

• 3-second pause at the top for 3 reps. 

To eliminate order effects, techniques were performed in a randomised sequence. 

This is what I found (also shown in Figure 3): 

• Continuous rebound: 3328 W ± 128 (95% CI: 3052-3603 W) 

• 3-second pause at the top: 3328 W ± 134 (95% CI: 3039-3617 W) 

• 3-second pause at the bottom: 3079 W ± 126 (95% CI: 2807-3351 W) 

A quick analysis confirmed that technique significantly influenced peak power (p = 0.003). The continuous rebound and 3-seond pause at the top produced nearly identical results (p = 1.00), while the 3-second pause at the bottom resulted in significantly lower power output (p = 0.04) compared to the other two methods. 

The key takeaway is that when looking to maximise power output on the Keiser Squat, both the continuous rebound and 3-second pause at the top methods are equally effective. The pause at the bottom, while potentially valuable for developing concentric power, led to a decrease in power due to the loss of elastic energy typically present in a continuous movement. 

Keiser Runner Technique

The Keiser Runner was designed to bridge the gap between the gym and the track (or, in my case, the gym and the rugby field). The machine allows for athletes to build what I term “specific power” due to the angle of force application and the way it mimics the acceleration phase of the sprint. 

There are two main ways to set up in the machine: 

1. Both feet in the pedals (as shown in the first video). 

1. One foot in the pedal, the other on the floor acting as a wedge for stability. 

Video 3. Athlete using the Keiser Runner with both legs involved in the exercise. 

Video 4. Athlete performs 1-leg exercise using the Keiser Runner. 

The Keiser Runner allows for athletes to build what I term *specific power* due to the angle of force application and the way it mimics the acceleration phase of the sprint, says @jonobward. Share on X

Two things to note when using the Keiser Runner: 

First, I always use the 1-leg option with my squad because it consistently produces higher power scores. The added stability from “wedging” yourself between the shoulder pads and the ground allows for greater force production. More stability equals more output—just like how bench pressing on a solid bench generates more force than pressing on a Swiss ball. 

Second, proper setup is crucial. Without it, athletes won’t limit their power output and it may reinforce poor mechanics. Here’s what I mean: 

• A “short” setup is when the shoulder pads are too low, forcing a folding of the hips, and this subsequently limits full hip extension.

• A “tall” setup is when the shoulder pads are too high. While this setup may look ideal at first, once the athlete starts pumping their legs, the hips drop forward, the lower back extends, and power output decreases. 

• The optimal setup happens with a near-perfect line from ankle to head. I call this a “stacked” setup, where the athlete feels “tight”, allowing for efficient power transfer with every leg drive. 

Limitations of Pneumatic Resistance Training

As much as I value pneumatic machines, they do have limitations—primarily, a limited effectiveness in developing maximal strength and hypertrophy compared to other training modalities8,9. Also, while not a major drawback, Frost et al.5 found that peak power outputs were comparable between pneumatic and free weights at higher relative loads, suggesting that both modalities are effective in developing power.  

If the goal is to maximise RFD, however, Olympic lifts provide a superior method by leveraging the inertial properties of mass7. Additionally, Balachandran et al.1 reported that while pneumatic resistance improved lower body power in older adults, plate-loaded machines demonstrated similar effectiveness, particularly for upper body strength development.  

Conclusion

At the end of the day, pneumatic resistance is just another tool in the toolbox. It’s not a magic bullet, but when used correctly, it can add a lot of value to a well-rounded program. The biggest advantages? Pneumatic resistance allows athletes to accelerate throughout almost the entire movement, eliminates momentum doing the work for them, and provides live feedback to keep them competing. That’s why I keep it in my programming, especially when I’m targeting speed-strength and power development. 

Pneumatic resistance allows athletes to accelerate throughout almost the entire movement, eliminates momentum doing the work for them, and provides live feedback to keep them competing, says @jonobward. Share on X

That said, it’s not the answer for everything. If I’m looking to build max strength or hypertrophy, I’ll lean on traditional free weights. If I want to develop strength-speed qualities, Olympic lifts still have their place. Pneumatic resistance shines when I need high-velocity, low-fatigue work. 

So, do I think Keiser and pneumatic resistance make athletes better rugby players? Not directly. But do they help improve the physical qualities that separate great players from good ones? Absolutely. At the elite level, small margins make a big difference, and if I can give my athletes any edge, I’m taking it. 

Ultimately, it’s about understanding what each tool does best and using it at the right time, in the right way, for the right athlete. That’s coaching. 

References 

1. Balachandran AT, Gandia K, Jacobs KA, Streiner DL, Eltoukhy M, Signorile JF. Power training using pneumatic machines vs. plate-loaded machines to improve muscle power in older adults. Exp Gerontol. 2017 Nov; 98:134-142. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2017.08.009. Epub 2017 Aug 10. PMID: 28804046.
2. Cronin JB, Hansen KT. Strength and power predictors of sports speed. J Strength Cond Res. 2005 May;19(2):349-57. doi: 10.1519/14323.1. PMID: 15903374.
3. 3. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power: Part 1–biological basis of maximal power production. Sports Med. 2011 Jan 1;41(1):17-38. doi: 10.2165/11537690-000000000-00000. PMID: 21142282.
4. 4. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Developing maximal neuromuscular power: part 2 – training considerations for improving maximal power production. Sports Med. 2011 Feb 1;41(2):125-46. doi: 10.2165/11538500-000000000-00000. PMID: 21244105.
5. 5. Frost DM, Cronin JB, Newton RU. A comparison of the kinematics, kinetics and muscle activity between pneumatic and free weight resistance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2008 Dec;104(6):937-56. doi: 10.1007/s00421-008-0821-8. Epub 2008 Oct 1. PMID: 18830619.
6. 6. Frost DM, Bronson S, Cronin JB, Newton RU. Changes in Maximal Strength, Velocity, and Power After 8 Weeks of Training With Pneumatic or Free Weight Resistance. J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Apr;30(4):934-44. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001179. PMID: 26418368.
7. 7. Keiser Corporation. (2023). Keiser Essentials: Machine details and training principles. Keiser Training Systems Manual.
8. 8. Maroto-Izquierdo S, McBride JM, Gonzalez-Diez N, García-López D, González-Gallego J, de Paz JA. Comparison of Flywheel and Pneumatic Training on Hypertrophy, Strength, and Power in Professional Handball Players. Res Q Exerc 2022 Mar;93(1):1-15. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2020.1762836. Epub 2020 Jul 15. PMID: 32669052.
9. 9. Peltonen, H., Häkkinen, K., & Avela, J. (2013). Neuromuscular responses to different resistance loading protocols using pneumatic and weight stack devices. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 23(1), 118–124.

My first introduction to Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence came from my uncle, Mark Martinez, a state champion head football coach and exceptional high jump instructor. Being personally involved in academia, pursuing a doctorate, and coaching, I was fascinated by the potential of this new technology to enhance my daily work. That same evening, I challenged Chat GPT to produce an APA-formatted, 500-word essay on coaching and teaching methods, complete with up-to-date references. Upon initiating the request, I was immediately struck by the rapid generation of content, the AI’s general comprehension of my query, and the prospective boost to my efficiency this novel tool might offer. 

Upon closer examination of the output, however, I noticed discrepancies in formatting, non-existent citations, and somewhat disjointed prose. While impressive, it was evident that the technology had limitations and still required human intervention.  

Nevertheless, my interest was thoroughly piqued! 

Since this initial introduction, I have spent considerable time immersed in the intersection of AI and education—giving presentations at conferences around the country, authoring articles, reading extensively on AI applications in higher education and K-12 settings, and even conducting a study with my colleagues involving over 300 educators on their AI usage and perceptions. Though I have been deep in the AI game for a few years now, I am blown away every day by a new feature or application for AI in my daily tasks.  

The speed at which the technology has increased and improved has been dizzying, while the reception it has garnered from the education profession—including coaches—has been mixed at best. This article is meant to tamp down the concerns of those who think it will only dull the minds of the user and bring back to earth those who might think it is a band-aid that can be slapped on the wound of being undereducated. 

The speed at which the technology has increased and improved has been dizzying, while the reception AI has garnered from the education profession—including coaches—has been mixed at best. Share on X

In my view, we do a disservice to our students, athletes, and clients if we choose to remain agnostic about AI usage. Even if you just have it double-check your work for errors, you are adding an extra level of assurance that you are offering the very best opportunities for growth to those who trust you enough to call you coach. 

My Journey with AI in Coaching 

The first time I used Claude Sonnet 3.7 to analyze my track team’s performance data, I felt like I had discovered the coach’s equivalent of a time machine. I uploaded several seasons worth of Excel sheets containing practice results, competition times, and individual progression metrics. Within minutes, Claude had processed years of training logs, competition results, and individual athlete progressions that would have taken me days to sift through manually. The insights were not just faster; they were also deeper, identifying patterns across seasons that I had completely missed despite my years of experience. 

I was not replaced, as many said would happen. I was being enhanced. 

Every time I start a task and think “this is taking too long,” I turn to AI for assistance. For example, when I collect data at practice, I usually write it down longhand on a notepad instead of entering it directly into Excel. This is significantly faster and helps the athletes get through their reps more efficiently. Previously, I would have to manually enter everything into Excel each evening. Now, I simply take a picture of my notepad and upload it to Claude, asking it to convert the data into an Excel file along with a brief analysis of the day’s results. After a couple of practice sessions, I can then ask the AI to analyze trends across multiple practices to determine if I need to adjust my training program going forward. 

What I have learned is simple, but powerful: AI is not a gimmick. It is not a replacement for your content knowledge and coaching expertise, but it is not going anywhere. 

When used effectively and efficiently, AI will not diminish our coaching abilities; instead, it will dramatically improve them. Share on X

As coaches, we need to embrace these tools for what they truly are, not what we fear they might be based on headlines or secondhand information. When used effectively and efficiently, AI will not diminish our coaching abilities; instead, it will dramatically improve them. 

Understanding the AI Coaching Mindset

Before diving into specific applications, I want to lay out three fundamental aspects of working with AI as coaches. 

1. How to Write Effective Prompts

The quality of the output from AI depends entirely on the input. Think of prompting as coaching AI—the more context, supporting documentation, and rationale you provide, the better your results. 

I have found these strategies particularly effective. 

• Provide rich context: Don’t just ask for a “sprint workout plan.” Instead, explain that you are working with high school juniors who are struggling with their start acceleration in the 100m, have been training for three years, and are currently in the late pre-competition phase. 

• Include examples: If you want a certain format or style, provide an example. “I’m looking for a workout schedule similar to this one I used last season, but with modifications for athletes returning from minor hamstring issues…” 

• Ask the AI for clarification: One of my favorite techniques is ending my initial prompt with: “Before we start, do you have any questions that will help clarify what I am asking you to do?” 

Here is an example of a prompt I have used that follows these concepts.  

“Last spring, I had the privilege of coaching our high school’s track and field sprint squad through what turned out to be a really interesting season. Throughout those months, I meticulously tracked our athletes’ progress—everything from their quick 10-meter fly times to their full 40-yard dashes. I have all that data saved, along with our complete training schedule that we followed throughout the season. Now, as I’m planning for next season, I find myself sitting here with these spreadsheets and training calendars, knowing there’s a story in this data that could help us do even better next year. The numbers tell me how each athlete progressed, but I’d love a fresh set of eyes to help me understand what patterns might be hiding in there.  

What I want you to do is dive into this data with me—first to spot those patterns in how our athletes developed over the season, and then to look at how our training schedule might have influenced those outcomes. Maybe there were weeks where we hit the sweet spot with our training, or maybe there were missed opportunities we could capitalize on next time around? I’m about to share both the performance data and our training schedule from last season. Could you help me understand what story this data is telling, and then use those insights to suggest how we might refine our training approach for the upcoming season? I’m particularly interested in understanding not just what to change, but why those changes might help our athletes perform better. 

All the data you need is attached as PDF documents. 

Before we start, do you have any questions for me?”  

And here is the output produced by Claude Sonnet 3.7: 

As you can see, it noticed I didn’t attach the files I said I would and asked for me to provide them, along with some more background information. So, in the next chat I answered Claude’s questions and provided the files for review.  

Video 1 – Screen-Recording-AI

Video 1. Screen recording of Claude 3.7 analyzing the inputs. 

And here is what was produced:  

“Based on my analysis of your track team’s data, I can see several interesting patterns in both your training schedule and athlete performance. Here’s what the data is telling us and how we might refine your approach for next season: 

Key Training Schedule Insights 

Your current training schedule follows a well-structured periodization approach with distinct phases: 

1. Base Building Phase (Weeks 1-3)  

• Gradual increase in Time Under Tension (TUT) from 11.5 to 14.5 seconds 

• Focus on technique and introducing athletes to stimuli 

2. Loading Phase (Weeks 4-5)  

• Dramatic increase to peak volume (80 seconds TUT in week 5) 

• The jump from week 3 to week 4 represents a 417% increase in TUT 

3. Tapering Phase (Weeks 6-9)  

• Steep initial decrease (44% drop from peak) 

• Progressive reduction to 9 seconds TUT (93% below peak) 

4. Reload Phase (Weeks 10-11)  

• Brief increase in volume to maintain adaptations 

• Still significantly below peak (43.5 seconds TUT) 

5. Competition Phase (Weeks 12-13)  

• Minimal TUT (5 and 3.5 seconds) 

• Prioritizing freshness for championship competitions 

Athlete Performance Analysis 

Analyzing your athletes’ improvements across various metrics revealed: 

1. Top Performers:  

• Fastest male: ****** 

• Fastest female: ******** 

• Most improved male: ********* (13% average improvement) 

• Most improved female: ******** (7.12% improvement) 

2. Grade-Level Differences:  

• Sophomores (grade 10) showed the highest average improvement (4.6%) 

• Seniors (grade 12) showed the lowest average improvement (1.95%) 

• Freshmen (grade 9) had the fastest average 40y dash times for males 

3. Gender Differences:  

• Male athletes showed greater variance in improvement rates 

• Female athletes in grade 10 demonstrated particularly consistent improvements 

Recommendations for Next Season 

Based on these insights, here are specific refinements that could enhance your training approach: 

1. Base Building Phase

• Extend to 4 weeks to allow better adaptation, especially for younger athletes 

• Implement more gradual TUT increases (e.g., 11.5→13.5→17→22) to prepare for the loading phase 

• Consider differentiating volume between experienced and novice athletes 

2. Loading Phase

• Smooth the transition into peak loading (the 417% jump is likely too aggressive) 

• Implement a more gradual build-up to peak (e.g., 22→40→60→80) 

• Consider gender-specific loading profiles as your data shows different adaptation patterns 

3. Tapering Phase

• Create a more stepped taper rather than the sharp initial drop 

• Consider a pattern like 80→65→50→35→20 seconds TUT 

• Individualize taper rates for upperclassmen vs. underclassmen (data suggests different recovery needs) 

4. Targeted Development

• Customize training for different grade levels – your freshmen seem to respond well to speed work while sophomores show the best overall development 

• The data suggests grade 10 athletes are in a “sweet spot” for improvement – consider how to capitalize on this developmental window 

• For seniors, focus more on race-specific preparation and maintaining existing abilities 

5. Supplementary Changes

• Continue using the effective competition preparation phase approach (minimal TUT in final weeks) 

• Consider shorter, more frequent lactate workouts during the loading phase instead of concentrated volume 

• Add targeted acceleration development for athletes showing the largest gaps between fly times and push/dash times 

Application for Next Season 

To implement these changes effectively: 

1. Individualize training clusters – group athletes by development pattern rather than strictly by gender or event 
2. Monitor 10m fly times frequently as an early indicator of adaptation 
3. Introduce mini-tapers every 3-4 weeks to allow for better recovery 
4. Extend the base phase but maintain your excellent competition phase approach 
5. Create separate loading profiles for athletes based on grade level and recovery ability 

These adjustments should help smooth out the dramatic transitions in your training schedule while still maintaining the successful periodization approach that seems to have worked well for your athletes overall. 

Would you like me to elaborate on any particular aspect of these recommendations or discuss specific workout modifications for any phase of the season?” 

As you can see, the output was substantial. But it was so because I allowed Claude to ask clarifying question to gain information that I might not have thought to include in the prompt.   

2. How to Critique AI Outputs 

Obtaining information from AI is not the finish line; it is just the starting block. As coaches, our expertise is crucial in evaluating what we receive. 

• Verify the information: Did the AI “hallucinate” a research study or training technique that does not actually exist? AI can occasionally fabricate sources or combine information inaccurately. 

In my work, AI most frequently hallucinates research that doesn’t exist. Because AI is programmed to be pleasing to the user, it will provide things it knows the user wants even when they don’t exist. That’s why I’ve incorporated specialized research AI tools like Consensus AI Scite, and PaperPal, which help me verify scientific claims and find legitimate research to ground my training methods. 

In my work, AI most frequently hallucinates research that doesn't exist. Because AI is programmed to be pleasing to the user, it will provide things it knows the user wants even when they don't exist. Share on X

• Compare with your expertise: Does the suggested approach align with your coaching philosophy and what you know to be effective for your specific athletes? AI provides suggestions based on patterns in its training data, but you know your athletes personally. 

3. Understanding Your Coaching Domain

Arguably, having a deep understanding of the subject matter is the most crucial aspect of using AI well. Crafting effective prompts requires familiarity with the specific vocabulary related to the intended output of the prompt.  

To effectively judge AI outputs, you must first have a comprehensive understanding of what quality looks like in your domain. You should be capable of creating what you are seeking without any AI assistance; AI simply helps you do it better or faster. 

Think of AI as: 

• An extra set of hands that can analyze piles of data in minutes instead of hours (I have experienced this firsthand, both when conducting qualitative thematic analysis as part of my doctoral work as well as crunching quantitative track practice data). 

• An extra set of eyes that functions as one of the best editors you will ever work with. You can ask it to check for specific issues in your training plans or ensure that your approach aligns with the research or methodology you are basing it on. 

Having a deep understanding of the subject matter is the most crucial aspect of using AI well. Crafting effective prompts requires familiarity with the specific vocabulary related to the intended output of the prompt. Share on X

Real-World Applications: AI in Track and Performance Coaching

Every season, I create a comprehensive practice plan and meticulously record data for each athlete on my team. I maintain a Google Sheet that houses all our athletes’ event records and practice metrics, such as 30m pushes from blocks, 10m flies, 10-yard flies, 40-yard dashes, and similar measurements. Each separate page of the Google Sheet represents a season and its collected data. Throughout the season, I track multiple data points to ensure that acceleration, max velocity, and speed endurance are improving as expected. 

The data collected throughout the course of the season helped me adjust my plan, determine the needed rest days that I had not planned for, and make decisions about relay team composition. With AI, I’ve elevated this process significantly. 

Now, I can feed years of historical team data into Claude or Grok—including past training plans and season outcomes—and ask it to identify trends, patterns, training gaps, or new training ideas tailored specifically to my team’s history. The beauty of this approach is that the suggestions are not based on generic articles about track teams in completely different contexts (like Florida!), they are individualized to my specific program and athletes! 

This has always been the ultimate goal in coaching: to provide maximally-individualized attention in the most efficient way possible. 

Furthermore, I have begun creating AI-assisted training plans for individual athletes. When I have a multi-event athlete plateauing while teammates continue to set PRs, I can ask the AI to help create a specialized plan (based on the team’s overarching framework) that addresses their specific needs. 

Here’s a real-world example of how I might prompt AI to help with an athlete-specific issue: 

“I have a sophomore male sprinter suffering from significant shin splints midway through our season. He’s an integral member of our 4x100m relay team that’s currently ranked top three in the state. I need to maintain his max velocity and speed endurance while reducing volume to help his shins heal. Based on my coaching philosophy of prioritizing quality over quantity and focusing on technical efficiency, what would you recommend to ensure he’s ready for the state meet in six weeks?” 

Here’s what the AI provided in response: 

“Based on your coaching philosophy of quality over quantity and technical efficiency, here’s a modified training approach for your sophomore sprinter with shin splints who needs to be ready for state: 

SHORT-TERM RECOVERY PLAN (WEEK 1-2): 

1. Reduce ground contacts by 40-50% while maintaining intensity • Replace 2-3 track sessions with pool sprints or AlterG treadmill work if available  
2. • Limit starts to 3-5 quality reps twice weekly vs. normal volume  
3. • Focus on technical drills emphasizing proper dorsiflexion and foot strike 
4. Implement daily rehabilitation protocol: • Morning: 10-minute ice therapy and controlled ankle mobility work • Post-practice: 15-minute contrast bath therapy  
5. • Evening: Compression sleeves and elevation  
6. • 2-3x weekly sports massage targeting anterior compartment 
7. Cross-training to maintain fitness:  
8. • Upper body/core circuit training 4x weekly  
9. • Stationary bike intervals (30sec on/90sec off) for anaerobic maintenance • 
10.  Aqua sprinting with resistance for power maintenance 

TRANSITION PHASE (WEEK 3-4): 

1. Progressive return to track work: • Begin with straight-line acceleration work on softer surfaces (grass) • 60-70% normal volume with 100% intensity on technical days • Introduce curve running gradually with emphasis on relaxation • Continue relay exchange practice with walkthrough technique focus 
2. Modified speed endurance work: • Break longer repetitions into smaller segments with complete recovery • Example: Instead of 2x200m, use 2x(60m+60m+80m) with full recovery • This maintains quality while reducing continuous impact 

STATE PREPARATION (WEEK 5-6): 

1. Race modeling with extended recovery: • Full-intensity relay leg simulations with 2x normal recovery time • 2-3 relay practice sessions weekly with emphasis on exchange efficiency • One time-trial simulation per week at 90-95% effort 
2. Peaking strategy: • Gradually return to normal volume by week 5, maintaining high intensity • Final 7 days: sharp reduction in volume while maintaining frequency • 48-hour pre-competition protocol emphasizing nervous system readiness 

Throughout this plan, I would suggest daily monitoring of pain levels (1-10 scale), performing regular single-leg balance tests to assess neuromuscular control, and tracking 10m fly times once weekly to ensure velocity is maintained despite reduced volume. 

This approach should allow your athlete to maintain his speed qualities while giving the shin splints adequate time to heal before the championship meet.” 

What I appreciate about this response is how it addresses the immediate issue (shin splints) while keeping focus on the ultimate goal (state meet performance). The AI has broken down the six-week period into logical phases with specific, actionable recommendations that align with my coaching approach. I could implement this plan immediately, while still making adjustments based on how the athlete responds. 

Or, even if I do not want AI to create a plan, I can use AI as a sounding board to help me get to the bottom of the issue. 

Can I perform all these tasks without AI? Absolutely, I have for years. However, the improved quality of output when I provide sufficient context, combined with the time savings, makes it almost irresponsible not to use these tools. I have more time with my growing family and for my academic work and teaching, while my athletes benefit from more personalized training plans tailored to their individual needs. 

AI as a Programming Partner 

Not long ago, I had a conversation with one of my best friends, Reid Peters, who is the head strength coach at William and Mary College in Virginia. He told me about the mountain of data he collects on his athletes and how daunting it can be to sort through it all, compile it into actionable information, identify buckets that need to be filled, and then create 120 programs that meet the needs of his athletes—not just based on position groups, but based on the individual. 

To address this common situation, let me provide an example of a prompt I would write to get the ball rolling in this monumental endeavor. I will then point out some subtleties. 

“Hello! I am the head strength coach for a college football team preparing for our 12-week winter/spring offseason program beginning January 10th. 

We have collected extensive performance data on our athletes over the fall season, and I need help analyzing patterns and creating individualized programming recommendations. 

I will provide our testing data in CSV format with individual athlete results separated by position group (OL, DL, LB, DB, WR, QB, RB). 

Our key performance indicators include: (Insert specific KPIs with measurement units – e.g., Trap Bar Deadlift (% bodyweight), 10yd Sprint (seconds), etc.) 

I am attaching our departmental article outlining ideal KPI targets by position group, which explains how and why these specific metrics correlate with on-field performance. 

Additional context: 

• We have 3 strength coaches working with 85 scholarship athletes. 

• Access to 12 power racks, 10 platforms, and a 40-yard indoor turf area. 

• Training sessions limited to 75 minutes, 4 days/week. 

• Previous year’s testing data included for comparison—Spring practice begins March 15th. 

Based on this information, please: 

1. Identify the 3 most significant team-wide performance gaps compared to our ideal KPIs. 
2. For each position group, determine the most critical area needing improvement. 
3. For the athletes with the largest performance discrepancies, create individualized focus areas for my review. 
4. Recommend programming strategies that accommodate our facility/time constraints. 
5. Suggest a testing schedule to track progress throughout the 12-week period. 

Before we start, do you have any questions about our testing protocols, athlete population, or what format would be most helpful for your analysis and recommendations?” 

Notice that this prompt is exceptionally comprehensive. Its level of detail is such that an individual lacking substantial knowledge of the subject matter would struggle to generate it, as they would not possess the necessary understanding to formulate appropriate questions in the first place. 

Now, let us break down why this is a good prompt: 

1. Clear context and timeline: The coach immediately establishes the specific program length (12 weeks) and provides important dates (January 10th start, March 15th, Spring practice). This temporal context is crucial for AI to understand the training windows. 
2. Data format specification: By mentioning the CSV format and position group organization, the coach prepares the AI for the expected data structure, which significantly improves the analysis accuracy. 
3. Specific metrics with units: The prompt specifies not only which KPIs to analyze but also includes their measurement units, eliminating ambiguity. 
4. Supporting documentation: The coach referenced an attached article explaining ideal targets and their relationship with performance, providing the AI with crucial background knowledge. 
5. Real-world constraints: The prompt outlines practical limitations (three coaches, 85 athletes, equipment availability, time constraints) that any recommendations must work within—something many coaches forget to specify. 
6. Historical context: By mentioning and providing the previous year’s data, the coach enables trend analysis rather than just a snapshot view. 
7. Clearly structured deliverables: The numbered list clearly defines exactly what the coach wants, in priority order. 
8. Open-ended follow-up invitation: The final question invites clarification, which often leads to important details being revealed before the analysis begins. 

When writing a prompt, I want to be confident that it will produce actionable, contextualized recommendations rather than generic training advice. This example provides the AI with everything it needs to provide truly individualized insights that account for the complete coaching environment. 

When writing a prompt, I want to be confident that it will produce actionable, contextualized recommendations rather than generic training advice. Share on X

Pro Tips for Coaches Using AI

Through trial, and lots of error, I’ve developed several strategies that significantly improve AI’s usefulness in coaching contexts. I put many of these tips into action in the example prompt above, but here they are broken down: 

Upload Supporting Documents

Writing lengthy prompts is valuable, but often, your requests will be based on existing materials—articles, past training plans, or images. Instead of re-typing everything, simply upload those documents along with a brief prompt. 

For example, I teach a speed coaching course at my university and offer it as a standalone certification as well. For these courses, I have written two e-books defining my entire approach to speed development and the factors I consider when creating training plans. Rather than rewriting my philosophy each time I need to adjust something, I simply upload my e-books into the AI chat as a starting point. The AI then has everything it needs to know about my coaching approach to help me make programmatic decisions that are aligned with my methodology. 

You do not need to write books for this to work, but having solid, long-form prompts that you know you will use again tucked away is a good idea. This leads to my next point. 

Save Effective Prompts

I maintain a dedicated folder on my computer for prompts that generate excellent results. From revamping course syllabi to tracking my speed clients’ progress, I preserve the prompts that consistently deliver value to my end user.  

This saves a tremendous amount of time when addressing similar coaching challenges in the future. I will include a bunch of useful prompts at the end of this article.  

Choose the Right AI Tools

While many options exist, I recommend focusing on established platforms. 

• Grok offers impressive capabilities, particularly for data analysis and real time information. 

• Claude is the tool I’m most familiar with and find exceptionally helpful for coaching applications. 

• ChatGPT remains solid, although it has also received the most attention as the first widely-adopted platform. 

Stay informed about updates to each platform to determine which one best suits your specific coaching needs. Consider factors like: 

• Internet connectivity for accessing real-time information. 

• Document upload capabilities. 

• Data visualization features. 

• Mobile accessibility for sideline use. 

Differentiating for Individual Athletes Beyond Track 

Although my background is in track, AI’s potential extends across all coaching domains. Here are some applications beyond the track that leverage the same individualization principles. 

For Recovery Protocols 

Recovery is increasingly recognized as crucial to performance, yet it is highly individualized. AI can help process multiple data points, sleep quality, subjective fatigue ratings, HRV measurements, and previous recovery responses to suggest personalized recovery protocols. 

A wrestler cutting weight while maintaining performance could receive AI-generated nutrition and recovery plans that account for their specific metabolic needs, training load, and competition schedule, all based on their individual data, rather than generic recommendations. 

For Mental Performance 

Mental skills coaches can use AI to identify patterns in performance anxiety or concentration issues across different competition settings. By analyzing competition journals, performance metrics, and pre-competition routines, AI can help identify triggers and suggest personalized mental skills interventions for athletes. 

A golfer struggling with performance consistency could receive an AI-assisted analysis identifying that their putting performance decreases specifically in the final three holes when leading, which might take months to identify through traditional coaching methods alone. 

Getting Started with AI in Your Coaching Practice

If you’ve never used AI tools before, the prospect might seem daunting. Here’s a simple roadmap to get you started without feeling overwhelmed: 

Step 1: Choose Your First AI Tool

Start with one platform rather than trying several simultaneously. I recommend Claude or ChatGPT as beginner-friendly options. Both have free tiers that allow you to experiment before committing financially. 

• Sign up at claude.ai or chat.openai.com. 

• Take 10 minutes to explore the interface. 

• Look for options to upload documents (this will be valuable later). 

Step 2: Begin with a Simple, Low-Stakes Task

Your first AI interaction doesn’t need to be revolutionary. Here are three simple starter tasks: 

1. Ask it to explain a coaching concept you already understand well. This helps you gauge the AI’s baseline knowledge in your domain. 
2. Have it proofread an existing document like a practice plan or parent communication. Type: “Please proofread this document for clarity, grammar, and tone, suggesting improvements where appropriate.” 
3. Draft a standard email template you send frequently. For example: “Create an email template I can send to athletes who miss practice, emphasizing accountability while maintaining a supportive tone.” 

Step 3: Try a Coaching-Specific Prompt 

Once comfortable with the basics, try this simple prompt template: 

“I am a (sport) coach working with (age/level) athletes. I need help creating a (practice plan/drill/feedback script) focused on (specific skill or concept). My athletes are currently struggling with (specific issue). Their strengths include (strengths). Our practice environment includes (equipment/space/time constraints). Can you provide a detailed (practice plan/drill/feedback script) that addresses these needs?” 

Fill in the parentheses with your specific information, and you’ll receive a customized response you can evaluate and adapt. 

Step 4: Incorporate Document Uploads 

Once you’re comfortable with basic prompts, try uploading a relevant document—perhaps a research article about your sport or a previous practice plan. Then ask: 

“Based on this document and my context as a (sport) coach with (level) athletes, what are 3 key ideas I could implement in my next practice?” 

Step 5: Create a Prompt Journal 

Start a simple document or note on your phone where you save prompts that worked well. Include: 

• The exact prompt text. 

• What you liked about the response. 

• How you might modify it next time. 

Here are 12 specific prompts that track coaches focused on short sprints might find particularly valuable: 

1. “Analyze these 10m, 30m, and 60m sprint times from our last three practices and identify which athletes are showing the greatest improvements in acceleration vs. top-end speed.” 
2. “Based on these results from our 4x100m relay team and their splits, calculate the exchange efficiency for each handoff and suggest technical adjustments.” 
3. “Create a periodized 8-week plan for improving 200m performance for a sprinter who’s strong in acceleration but struggles with maintaining speed on the curve. The program I have been using doesn’t seem to meet the needs of this athlete. They are also a soccer player who practices MWF with their soccer team for 2 hours, and then on TTH, they practice with us” 
4. “Compare these block start reaction times and 10m split times from practice to identify correlations between stance setup and initial acceleration. These are from the same athlete” 
5. “Come up with three cues to improve arm mechanics for a 100m sprinter who drops their elbows during the final 30m of their race. My go-to cues don’t seem to resonate” 
6. “Analyze this season’s workout data for my top female 100m sprinter and identify the optimal volume-intensity balance that preceded her best performances.” 
7. “Create a visualization template for tracking weekly training loads across acceleration, max velocity, and speed endurance sessions throughout a 16-week season and apply it to the schedule I have provided.” 
8. “Evaluate this video analysis data of ground contact times and stride frequency across my sprint group and recommend individualized cues for each athlete.” 
9. “Generate a decision tree for modifying sprint workouts based on wind conditions ranging from +3.0 to -3.0 m/s.” 
10. “Design a spreadsheet formula that automatically calculates speed decay percentage between first and second 100m in a 200m race.” 
11. “Convert these handwritten practice notes into an organized Excel format with conditional formatting that highlights values outside the expected range.” 
12. “Create an athlete-friendly explanation of how we’ll use GPS data from practice to individualize their flying sprint distances based on their stride patterns.” 
13. “Here are the results from our last meet, create an email I can send out to parents that highlight PRs, wins, and other accomplishments.” 

Saving these prompts can become a valuable asset as you build your AI coaching arsenal, eliminating the need to start from scratch each time you sit down at your computer. 

Remember, your first attempts don’t need to be perfect. The goal is to start small, experiment regularly, and gradually integrate AI into aspects of your coaching where it adds genuine value. Like any new coaching tool, proficiency comes with consistent practice and reflection. 

The Future of AI in Coaching

As AI tools continue to evolve, we are likely to see even more specialized applications for coaches. Things like real-time analysis of practice footage with immediate feedback suggestions, predictive injury prevention based on subtle changes in movement patterns, comprehensive development tracking that integrates physical, technical, tactical, and psychological factors, and virtual assistant capabilities that handle administrative tasks while coaches focus on athlete relationships. 

The coaches who thrive will be those who leverage AI to handle time-consuming tasks while they focus on what matters most: the human connection, motivation, and nuanced guidance that no algorithm can provide. Share on X

However, the fundamental principle remains: AI will never replace quality coaching itself. The coaches who thrive will be those who leverage AI to handle the time-consuming analytical tasks while they focus on what matters most: the human connection, motivation, and nuanced guidance that no algorithm, prompt, or engine can provide. 

Final Thoughts: Embracing the AI Coaching Revolution 

Let me be completely transparent: adopting AI in your coaching practice requires an initial investment of time and effort. Learning to write effective prompts, critically evaluating outputs, and building systems that work for specific contexts does not happen overnight. Just as you have continuously evolved your coaching methods throughout your career, incorporating AI represents the next evolution, not a replacement of your hard-earned wisdom but an amplification of it! 

Coaches who resist this change will eventually find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. I just had a student ask me last week why more professors do not teach them how to use AI effectively. She said, “They know we will need to know how to use it, but they refuse to learn how to use it themselves or teach us how to use it! It’s putting us at a disadvantage.” Do not put your athletes at a disadvantage by not taking advantage of the tools at your disposal. Coaches who embrace it thoughtfully will discover what I have: more time for what matters most, deeper insights into their athletes’ needs, and ultimately, better performance outcomes. 

I encourage you to start small, experiment consistently, and approach AI with the same growth mindset you foster in your athletes. The future of coaching is not human or artificial intelligence; it is the powerful combination of both! 

P.S 

If you would like to further this conversation, I would love to be of assistance! You can reach me at [email protected] 

Improving competition results requires better sprint speed and performance; for any runner, however, developing both of those qualities is complicated. If you create an effective routine, plyometric training may help your sprinters get faster.  

Learning more about what makes a plyometric program effective will help you coach your athletes to greater success while avoiding any guesswork along the way. 

Why Plyometric Training Is Crucial for Sprinters

Load monitoring is fundamental for any sprinter’s success. You’ll update each athlete’s workout focus based on their latest competition benchmarks, but the various aspects can get hazy. I’ve found myself focused on helping my sprinters with internal load training to maximize their self-perception while running, but it meant that my external load monitoring fell behind. That’s why I’m passionate about reminding coaches to utilize plyometrics routines. 

I’ve found myself focused on helping my sprinters with internal load training to maximize their self-perception while running, but it meant that my external load monitoring fell behind. Share on X

Plyometrics provides numerous physical and mental health benefits for athletes within four adaptable phases. Once you know the foundational premise of each phase, you can customize the training to your sprinter’s training needs: 

• Phase 1: Improving coordination and movement. 

• Phase 2: Refining landing mechanics. 

• Phase 3: Honing the explosive power in each step. 

• Phase 4: Practicing movements with short stretches prior to jumping.

The first phase targets coordination and movement. This type of exercise begins when kids are young, because these activities include skipping rope, running, and other kinds of general play. Athletes can repeat the same maneuvers to challenge their neuromuscular system with repetitive movements. Exercises like box jumps and jumping sprint tucks are helpful in this phase.  

Phase two practices landing mechanics. The control of each plyometric movement in this phase is more important than intensity. Precise landings teach the neuromuscular system to adapt to eccentric contractions at varying joint rotations. Unilateral and bilateral training enhance stabilization in single-leg landing tests, which puts more importance on practicing pogo hops, box jumps and other exercises outlined in a study from the College of Physical Education. 

Athletes should also incorporate phase three of plyometric training into their routines between competitions. This phase includes a specific focus on concentric contractions to maximize explosive power from kinetic energy gained with each step, ultimately improving your athlete’s speed. Small hurdle jumps and bench drives may hone this benefit in sprinters needing less system stiffness to improve their time. The key is giving them time to practice the muscle contractions that happen each time they push themselves off the ground through jumps or steps. 

The final phase concerns conditioning your athlete’s power to develop their stretch-shortening cycle (SSC). Movements with short stretches before each jump lengthen and contract muscles to prepare sprinters for hurdle jumps. Combining SSC plyometric exercises like squat jumps or bounding with jogging improves an athlete’s sprint performance by making muscles more used to functioning like well-oiled springs. 

Key Factors for Competitive Training Advancement

Adding plyometric routines to an athlete’s workouts is best done with precision. You’ll need to know how their current practices aid their competition performance and what they must strengthen. These benchmarks change over time, so coaches should always provide adaptive routines that refresh between events. 

Adding plyometric routines to an athlete’s workouts is best done with precision. You’ll need to know how their current practices aid their competition performance and what they must strengthen. Share on X

First, remember to increase jump intensity gradually. It’s crucial to assess how an athlete responds to plyometrics when they become a standard part of training before advancing the intensity of a specific movement. If the plyometric training is too intense too soon, the sprinter’s central nervous system may require valuable recovery time. Muscle tissue injuries may also occur if the athlete doesn’t receive proper training before plyometric workouts become too advanced. 

Additionally, sprinters need time to hone plyometric movement techniques. Completing each training motion without proper form can lead to undesired muscle compensations. When sprinters compound those subconscious compensations with intensified workouts, they may become more at risk for injury.  

Changing volume with intensity is another vital part of coaching sprinters through plyometric training. Overloading an athlete with only one specific exercise prevents them from strengthening their muscles, joints, and perception. If box jumps feel intense for an athlete, doing fewer repetitions to reduce the volume refines the exercises to what their body can handle. Meanwhile, movements that feel lower in intensity can increase in reps. Refining both aspects of plyometric training according to what each athlete is currently capable of doing provides better balance and long-term performance results. 

Coaches should also select their word choice carefully to guide their athletes through jump-focused routines. When I coach my sprinters through skips during the first phase of plyometric activities, I tell them to grip the track and push up. The phrase reminds them to practice long jump takeoffs by rolling through their heels first, which better prepares them for events while doing eccentric contractions. 

Plyometrics can assist in any phase of a sprinter’s training progression. Whether they’re working on speed endurance, explosive movements, or peak sprint times, wielding jump-centric workouts with purposeful coaching flexibility will help your sprinters reach their desired outcomes. Your efforts may even prevent speed plateaus by incorporating conditioning drills during off-seasons through plyometric exercises and the need to diversify them with standard cardio workouts. 

Example of Plyometric Training Routine for Sprinters

If you’re ready to add more plyometric training to your programming, build personalized routines on a common foundation. This is the starter routine I’ve used to estimate which exercises my athletes should do, how many times they should do them, and what a comprehensive routine could look like for each sprinter.  

Exercise	Sets/Repetitions	Benefits
Skipping (Jumping Rope)	100 skips/3	Decreases muscle stiffness with low-impact exercise.
Box Jumps	Five continuous jumps/5	Reduces injury risk related to landing after hurdle jumps when box jumps happen continuously.
Alternate-Leg Horizontal Bounding	Five bounds per leg/7	Improves sprint acceleration before a race.
Single-Leg Hurdle Hops	Three hops per leg/4	Can enhance jumping and sprinting speed when the hurdles are equal to the athlete’s competitive hurdle height (between 6-42 inches).

Maximizing your athlete’s specific strengths, like stride length or speed, comes down to their personalized workouts. You should add or adjust example rounds with similar phase-related exercises for athletes with more stamina. 

Assessing Sprinters for Stamina Prior to Plyometric Routines

Developing a custom exercise routine is more challenging if you’re unsure of an athlete’s strengths and weaknesses. In that case, you may need to perform stamina testing before plyometric training. Assessing your athletes can help you identify how they perform in three key categories: 

1. Power
2. Strength  
3. Stability 

Vertical jump tests identify how much power your athlete can generate while going from standing to a mid-air position. Broad jumps then demonstrate how far that generated force can take them. They may need more power-centric plyometric movements to address a lack of force or distance, like deficit lunges. 

Your athlete’s stability allows them to push off the ground and land without hesitation before their next steps. Their stance and contact times during sprints may indicate a need for more stability training with jump-focused movements. I also assess this ability by timing my athletes while they stand on one leg or perform calf raises for 60 seconds. 

The key to any assessment is using multiple layers of inference to determine an athlete’s capabilities. You need to know how their combined strength, power, and stability are working to customize a plyometric training routine that improves their competition outcomes. 

Turning Assessment Data Into Effective Routines

After finishing an assessment, you’ll have a list of notes to compile into an actionable workout routine. I have felt a bit lost at times when I’ve reached this stage, but then I go back to the distinct phases of plyometric movements to pinpoint exercises for each area of opportunity. 

Direction was challenging for one of my sprinters (who had recently) recovered from a hamstring strain—they veered too close to their lane markers when they landed after a hurdle. Directional-specific jumps trained the muscles when landing without the exertion of a sprint. Single-leg ankle hops and cone drills were the most helpful adjustments to their routine. 

 You might also have an athlete with a high flight-time to stride-length ratio. You’ll see this when an athlete spends more time in the air after a hurdle jump than the time it takes to cross a distance on the ground. Plyometrics focused on horizontal jumps, like step-ups, can reduce the ratio by changing how they approach getting over hurdles. It’s an excellent assistive technique while coaching sprinters to practice using 90%-93% of their effort during float sections of their events. 

Deceleration control is another issue that can arise for sprinters. They need to slow their pace after an event comparable to their explosive starts. Deceleration encompasses merge control and speed, which may benefit sprinters struggling with this crucial part of competitions. 

Scheduling Rest for Optimal Recovery

Plyometric movements are high-intensity, especially if your athletes are focusing on single-leg exercises. The standard rest time between reps is two to four minutes, but that’s not enough time for optimal recovery. Rest days must be standard for routine practices so the muscle fibers can heal and become stronger before the next workout.  

When the athletes find their body’s recovery timeline paired with plyometric training routines designed for their biggest growth opportunities, you’ll help each sprinter achieve their best competition performances. Share on X

Adding rest days after jump-centric routines or varying them between cardio workouts will ease muscle strain so the tissue can become stronger, leading to the desired competition results. The number of rest periods will depend on each athlete’s ability to feel ready for more training, which also relates to their lifestyle, stress levels and nutritional intake. 

Understanding your athletes on an individual level will key you into how much rest each person needs. When they find their body’s recovery timeline paired with plyometric training routines designed for their biggest growth opportunities, you’ll help each sprinter achieve their best competition performances yet. 

The 1080 Sprint is a machine that can be used to train a variety of athletic movements, such as resisted sprints, assisted sprints, jumps, and change of direction activities. A key feature of the 1080 Sprint is the setting where you can manually set the desired velocity of the movement: for example, when performing a resisted sprint, you can set the maximal velocity that the athlete can accelerate to at 4.0 m/s. Or, if performing an assisted sprint, you can set the speed at 9.0 m/s and it will tow the athlete to this speed and then stay at that pace.  

The benefit of training athletes at specific velocities is to strategically overload the kinetic qualities of force and power. As observed in Figure 1 below, there is an inverse linear relationship between force and velocity, and a parabolic (u-shaped) relationship between power and velocity. If you run with a heavy sled, you won’t be going anywhere fast but you will be creating a lot of force. If you make that sled a little lighter, your force output will decrease but you will be moving faster and creating more power.  

Understanding these interactions allows coaches to prescribe resisted sprint training to strategically target the kinetic demands of specific sprint phases.  

The 1080 Sprint traces above illustrate how changing the resistance impacts sprint kinetics. The 20m sprint (red) with 1kg shows the highest velocities, but the lowest force and power outputs. As resistance increases—progressing from 10kg (green) to 20kg (black) and 30kg (yellow)–velocity decreases while force and power outputs increase. The highest force and power outputs are seen in the 30kg (yellow) sprint, showing how heavier resistance shifts the athlete along the force-velocity curve, prioritising force development. It is important to note that the speed limit setting was not applied to these sprints—they are shown purely for demonstration purposes. 

Speed Limit (Velocity Decrements)

In my first article for SimpliFaster, about profiling and programming on the 1080 Sprint, I touched briefly on this speed limit setting. This article is a deeper dive into how I use the speed limit with resisted sprints and then analyse the velocity, force, and power outputs. I will also explain the advantages and disadvantages of using this setting compared to using the traditional load (kg) setting.  

To those not familiar with the 1080 Sprint’s speed limit setting, when performing resisted sprints it functions as a braking system, intermittently engaging to restrict the athlete’s speed. Rather than applying constant resistance, the system activates when the athlete exceeds the set velocity, momentarily braking until the speed drops back below the limit, at which point the resistance eases off. With this intermittent braking application, you will find that there are slight fluctuations above the speed limit during the run, as the braking mechanism continuously adjusts to maintain the target velocity range. 

To those not familiar with the 1080 Sprint's speed limit setting, when performing resisted sprints, it functions as a braking system, intermittently engaging to restrict the athlete's speed, Share on X

In my current role, I’m limited to using the 1080 Sprint indoors on just 20 meters of synthetic turf. Previously, however, I was able to use the 1080 Sprint both indoors and outdoors, incorporating resisted and assisted sprints. Despite having less space now, I still see notable improvements in athletes’ acceleration. 

What Is Velocity Decrement?

I will be using this term a lot throughout this article, so first I should define it. Velocity decrement (Vdec) refers to a reduction in an athlete’s sprinting velocity to a predetermined percentage of their maximum velocity. For example, an athlete with a max velocity of 10.0 m/s running with a 50% Vdec will be restricted to 50% of their max velocity, or 5.0 m/s. Other examples can be seen below in Figure 5.  

Key Principles for Using the Speed Limit Setting

The load you decide to program will depend on the stage of the sprint you want to target, and the velocity decrement you will then observe. Two previous articles by George Petrakos can guide you in your programming, with a first part on sled load prescription and second part on programming resisted sprints.  

For me, there are two key principles I use when using the Vdec setting on the 1080 Sprint. 

1. I want the athlete to reach the target velocity before the end of the run—The athlete needs to reach the desired velocity before completing the run to take advantage of the Vdec setting. For example, if my 10.0 m/s athlete is running 15m with 30kg (heaviest setting on the 1080 Sprint Version 1), in addition to a 30% Vdec applied to the run, there is a good chance he won’t hit 7.0 m/s before the end of the 15m—meaning, he will not reap the benefits of the speed limit setting. To address this, I choose a weight that allows the athlete to achieve their target velocity before the end of the run. A general rule of thumb I use is that I want the athlete to hit the desired velocity at the halfway point of the run. So, for a 5m acceleration it would between the 2-3m mark, for a 10m accel at the 5m mark, and a 15m run at the 7-8m mark and so on.  
2. I want minimal disruption to sprint technique when the speed limit kicks in—I want to avoid technical disruptions when the athlete hits the desired velocity. This issue can occur when a light load is paired with a large velocity decrement, for example 5kg with a 70% Vdec. In this case, the athlete explodes out the start due to the lighter resistance but will experience a sudden jolt as the speed limit kicks in, which has a high chance of disrupting their technique. To prevent this, I select a load that allows a smooth transition from the initial weight through to the desired velocity, allowing the athlete to maintain consistent mechanics throughout the sprint.  

What Is the Benefit of Using the Speed Limit Setting? 

You may be asking: why would I choose to use the speed limit setting if a certain load on the 1080 Sprint will cause the velocity reduction I want? 

1. For large groups of athletes who have not yet undergone load-velocity profiling, it is difficult to determine the exact load needed to achieve a specific Vdec. If their maximum velocities are known, however, the speed limit setting on the 1080 Sprint allows for individualisation to each athlete.
2. Athletes may accelerate beyond the desired velocity if the prescribed load is too light, meaning the athlete is training outside the intended velocity zone.
3. The external load is insufficient to achieve large velocity decrements (e.g. >60% Vdec). In this case the speed limit setting provides an effective solution to ensure athletes work within the velocity range. 

Case Studies: Three Sprints with Three Different Interventions

Without further delay, let’s dive into the comparisons of the sprint kinetics of three interventions, each utilising different Vdec settings:  

• Large Vdec of 65% over 5 meters. 

• Moderate Vdec of 50% over 10 meters. 

• Small Vdec of 30% over 15 meters. 

Analysing these three interventions provides insight into how velocity restrictions influence sprint kinetics, specifically velocity, force, and power, and shows how resisted sprint training can be tailored to target specific performance adaptations. 

Analysing these interventions provides insight into how velocity restrictions influence sprint kinetics—specifically velocity, force, and power—and shows how resisted sprints can be tailored to target specific adaptations. Share on X

5m Comparisons 

The version 1.0 of the 1080 Sprint machine is limited to a maximum resistance of 30kg, which is not heavy enough for some of my powerful rugby athletes to achieve velocity decrements greater than 50%. For these athletes, combining the 30kg resistance with the speed limit setting allows me to achieve the velocity loss, and the subsequent force and power outputs I’m after.  

Below you will find a comparison 12 professional rugby players. They ran a contrast of a 5m accel with 30kgs, followed by a 3–4-minute rest, and then a 5m accel with the 30kg plus their 65% Vdec speed limit set. They did this twice through, for a total of 4 runs. From this, I averaged their two runs from each protocol and the group results are below. 

The average 65% Vdec of the 12 players equalled 2.9 m/s, and in the right-hand column of the table you will find the percent difference between the two protocols. 

		30kg	30kg + 65% Vdec	% Difference
0-5m Split	Split time [s]	1.87	2.09	11.1
	Average velocity [m/s]	2.69	2.40	11.4
	Peak velocity [m/s]	3.89	3.10	22.6
	Average force [N]	379	416	9.3
	Peak force [N]	559	763	30.9
	Average power [W]	1054	1039	1.4
	Peak power [W]	1834	2221	14.5

Table 1. Comparison of two 5m accelerations: one using 30kg of resistance and the other 30kg and a 65% Vdec applied. 

From the results, you can see the athletes completed the 5m/30kg protocol faster, and hit higher velocities, compared to the 5m/30kg/65%Vdec protocol. Whilst the average velocity in the 5m/30kg/65%Vdec protocol did not reach 2.9 m/s (as is to be expected over such a short distance with heavy resistance), you can see that the peak velocity was 22.6% lower compared to the 5m/30kg protocol. As previously discussed, the speed limit setting on the 1080 Sprint functions like a dynamic braking system that intermittently activates. This is evident as the peak velocity of 3.1 m/s slightly exceeds the set speed limit, demonstrating how powerful athletes re-accelerate beyond the limit before the system engages to bring them back within the target velocity. 

The force and power outputs demonstrate the other key differences between the two protocols. Average force was 9.3% higher (416 N vs. 379 N), peak force increased by 30.9% (763 N vs. 559 N), and peak power was 14.5% greater (2221 W vs. 1834 W). By contrast, average power was similar, with only a 1.4% difference between the two protocols. 

In summary, the 5m/30kg/65%vdec protocol resulted in higher force and peak power production, which makes it an effective tool for coaches and athletes wanting to overload the early acceleration phase.  

10m comparisons (with 0-5m and 5-10m splits)

Below, you will find individual data from four professional rugby athletes. The athletes completed two protocols on two different days. 

In the first session, they completed three 10m accelerations with a 15kg load and a speed limit set at 50% of each athlete’s Vdec. In the second session, I used the same format but increased the load to 20kg while maintaining the same speed limit. I selected these two loads to compare the initial acceleration phase (0–5m) sprint kinetics and observe whether the acceleration mechanics were impacted when the speed limit initiated on the lighter load (15kg). I can say now that I did not see—and the athletes did not feel—differences in technique between the 15kg and 20kg loads and the transition from load (kg) to the load plus the speed limit looked smooth. 

I then compared these two protocols to previous power profile data I have from each athlete. I took the load (kilogram) that elicited the same 50% Vdec during the 5-10m split to see which protocol resulted in higher force and power outputs. The results can be seen below.  

Athlete #1 – [Vdec @ 4.2 m.s]		15kg + 50% Vdec	20kg + 50% Vdec	24kg
0-5m Split	Split time [s]	1.56	1.69	1.74
	Average velocity [m/s]	3.21	2.97	2.88
	Peak velocity [m/s]	4.37	4.19	4.19
	Average force [N]	227	279	329
	Peak force [N]	336	403	486
	Average power [W]	752	863	967
	Peak power [W]	1408	1641	1686
5-10m Split	Split time [s]	1.20	1.20	1.20
	Average velocity [m/s]	4.16	4.17	4.17
	Peak velocity [m/s]	4.42	4.37	4.57
	Average force [N]	276	285	306
	Peak force [N]	422	386	400
	Average power [W]	1201	1189	1291
	Peak power [W]	2204	1958	1873
Athlete #2 – [Vdec @ 4.0 m.s]		15kg + 50% Vdec	20kg + 50% Vdec	27kg
0-5m Split	Split time [s]	1.62	1.71	1.80
	Average velocity [m/s]	3.10	2.93	2.79
	Peak velocity [m/s]	4.13	4.10	4.03
	Average force [N]	249	286	364
	Peak force [N]	539	414	527
	Average power [W]	820	881	1049
	Peak power [W]	1661	1625	1736
5-10m Split	Split time [s]	1.25	1.25	1.23
	Average velocity [m/s]	4.00	4.00	4.05
	Peak velocity [m/s]	4.10	4.14	4.58
	Average force [N]	386	373	353
	Peak force [N]	596	585	489
	Average power [W]	1541	1490	1457
	Peak power [W]	2386	2352	2018
Athlete #3 – [VDec @ 4.6 m.s]		15kg + 50% Vdec	20kg + 50% Vdec	27kg
0-5m Split	Split time [s]	1.71	1.69	1.82
	Average velocity [m/s]	2.93	2.97	2.78
	Peak velocity [m/s]	4.61	4.54	4.48
	Average force [N]	269	290	327
	Peak force [N]	416	424	462
	Average power [W]	789	885	962
	Peak power [W]	1707	1776	1899
5-10m Split	Split time [s]	1.17	1.20	1.21
	Average velocity [m/s]	4.56	4.58	4.53
	Peak velocity [m/s]	4.73	4.79	5.08
	Average force [N]	355	330	332
	Peak force [N]	543	498	449
	Average power [W]	1406	1389	1402
	Peak power [W]	2293	2217	2042
Athlete #4 – [Vdec @ 4.1 m.s]		15kg + 50% Vdec	20kg + 50% Vdec	27kg
0-5m Split	Split time [s]	1.73	1.75	1.80
	Average velocity [m/s]	2.89	2.86	2.78
	Peak velocity [m/s]	4.30	4.22	4.12
	Average force [N]	216	277	336
	Peak force [N]	303	398	450
	Average power [W]	642	808	959
	Peak power [W]	1127	1327	1762
5-10m Split	Split time [s]	1.22	1.23	1.23
	Average velocity [m/s]	4.10	4.07	4.07
	Peak velocity [m/s]	4.16	4.20	4.77
	Average force [N]	325	313	327
	Peak force [N]	448	454	415
	Average power [W]	1331	1274	1347
	Peak power [W]	2141	2064	1948

Table 2. 10m comparison data from 4 pro rugby athletes. 

There is a fair bit of data involved, so let me help you through the first example: 

• Athlete #1’s 50% Vdec was set at 4.2 m/s.  

• In the column headings, you have the three different 10m protocols.  

• The 15kg/50% Vdec, 20kg/50% Vdec, and the load protocol (which for Athlete #1 was with 24kg).  

The athlete accelerated faster with the 15kg and 20kg load, which is to be expected as there was less resistance on the 1080. Yet when looking at the sprint kinetics, the heavier 24kg load resulted in higher force and power outputs during the initial 5m phase. Remember this for later, as you will see a pattern emerge.  

When comparing the 5-10m split, the time to completion is all the same, as are the average velocities—you can also see that the peak velocity in the first two protocols was limited due to the 50% Vdec speed limit that was applied. Moving on to the average and peak force, they are similar with 100 watts separating the average power between the three. You will then notice a spike in peak power in the two 50% Vdec protocols. This is common when the speed limit kicks in, and the athlete has to work against this velocity limit to maintain their velocity.  

To summarise, in the first 5m split, the protocol using only the load (kg) produces higher force and power outputs compared to the lighter load combined with the 50% speed limit. However, in the final 5m split, the average and peak force, as well as average power outputs, are relatively similar across all protocols. The key distinction is a larger spike in peak power observed in the 50% Vdec protocols. You will see this trend was consistent across the rest of the athletes. 

If time constraints prevent you from completing a full load-velocity profile for your athletes, I recommend setting a resistance of 15kg for lighter athletes and 20kg for heavier athletes, combined with their individual 50% Vdec. This approach offers a practical and time-efficient alternative to train your athletes within the desired velocity zone while achieving an effective training stimulus. 

If time constraints prevent you from completing a full load-velocity profile for your athletes, I recommend setting a resistance of 15kg for lighter athletes and 20kg for heavier athletes, combined with their individual 50% Vdec. Share on X

A final note—I have not yet combined the 50% Vdec protocol with the load that naturally limits an athlete to 50% of their max velocity, but I would take an estimated guess and suggest you would get the best of both worlds. During the early acceleration phase, athletes would create higher levels of force and power due to the heavier load, and then as the speed limit setting kicks in, you will have the increase in peak power production. Whether the overall effect (ala faster acceleration) of a load-only protocol versus a speed limited protocol are similar or different remains to be seen, however. 

Comparison of 15m runs with 5kg and a 30% Vdec

The data shown is of an international level (Tier 1) rugby player and is a comparison of his 2 x 15m accelerations. The 1080 was set with 5kg on the cord, with one of the 15m runs also having a 30% Vdec speed limit set, which in his case was 6.2 m/s. I chose 5kg for this athlete to follow the two principles I mentioned at the start of the article:  

• I want the athlete to reach the target velocity before the end of the run. 

• I want minimal disruption to sprint technique when the speed limit kicks in.  

If I could do this exact set-up again, I would have put 3-4kg on the cord so he arrived one to two metres earlier at the desired velocity.  

Below is a summary of the athlete’s splits, with the percentage difference between them. 

Athlete #1 [VDec @ 6.2 m.s]		5kg + 30% VDec	5kg	Difference %
0-5m Split	Split time [s]	1.38	1.42	2.8
	Average velocity [m/s]	3.64	3.54	2.8
	Peak velocity [m/s]	5.36	5.74	6.8
	Average force [N]	108	108	0
	Peak force [N]	204	205	0.5
	Average power [W]	412	409	0.7
	Peak power [W]	1051	1125	6.8
5-10m Split	Split time [s]	0.85	0.86	1.2
	Average velocity [m/s]	5.90	5.87	0.5
	Peak velocity [m/s]	6.37	6.97	9
	Average force [N]	103	105	1.9
	Peak force [N]	175	197	11.8
	Average power [W]	623	646	3.6
	Peak power [W]	1051	1247	17.9
10-15m Split	Split time [s]	0.80	0.77	3.8
	Average velocity [m/s]	6.20	6.50	4.7
	Peak velocity [m/s]	6.29	7.07	11.7
	Average force [N]	185	91	68
	Peak force [N]	291	154	61.6
	Average power [W]	1147	607	61.6
	Peak power [W]	1805	1079	50.3

 Table 3. Comparison of 15m runs from International-level rugby athlete. 

In the first 10m of the sprint, the differences between the two protocols are minimal, as the athlete is primarily influenced by the 5kg load with the velocity limit yet to take effect. You may notice in the 5-10m split that the peak velocity value in the Vdec protocol is 9% lower, at 6.37 m/s. This tells me that the athlete achieved the desired speed, and the speed limit is starting to kick in.  

Now pay close attention, as the magic is about to happen—in the final 5m the benefits of the Vdec protocol are seen, with force and power outputs increasing by 50-68% to sustain his velocity. Despite his speed being limited, the athlete finishes only 0.03 seconds slower in the Vdec protocol, showing this speed limit protocol’s effectiveness at increasing force and power production while the athlete is still running at higher velocities. The 1080 traces directly below show the athlete speed-limited during the last 5m, in addition to the large spikes seen in their force and power output. 

These protocols, performed >15m, are what I refer to as “Transition Phase” protocols. In rugby, my athletes typically reach 70% of their maximum velocity by the 10m mark. This signifies that my athletes are transitioning from the acceleration phase to the max velocity phase. I use these lightly loaded Vdec protocols to target this transition. Yes, I am aware that sprinters experience the transition phase much later in their runs, but for rugby athletes, as a rule of thumb, anything past 10m could be argued as the beginning of their transition phase. 

Conclusion

Using the speed limit setting on the 1080 Sprint has advantages over the load only protocols. By using predetermined velocity decrements, athletes can train within their individual velocity zones, resulting in higher force and power outputs, most notably in the heavier (e.g. 65% Vdec) and lighter (30% Vdec) protocols. This approach also allows coaches to tailor individual sessions to athletes without completing a load velocity profile, which can be time consuming in larger groups. However, the limitation with using the speed limit setting arises when the optimal load (kg) for each athlete is uncertain. An example of this can be seen in 10m protocols where the 15kg and 20kg loads used alongside a Vdec resulted in lower force and power outputs during the early (0-5m) acceleration phase.  

By using predetermined velocity decrements, athletes can train within their individual velocity zones, resulting in higher force and power outputs, says @jonobward. Share on X

For those of you curious about training in different velocity zones, and the impact this has on performance, I published a research paper with the Australian Strength and Conditioning Association (ASCA) on this topic. I had three groups of professional rugby players each completing a different resisted sprint training protocol. You can read the paper here, and the key takeaway was specificity: you improve performance over the distance you train, and using the appropriate sled loads is crucial to achieving the desired adaptations. 

References 

1. Cross MR, Brughelli M, Samozino P, Brown SR, Morin JB. Optimal Loading for Maximizing Power During Sled-Resisted Sprinting. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017 Sep;12(8):1069-1077. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0362. Epub 2017 Jan 4. PMID: 28051333.