Blog

Working in the NFL gave me an opportunity to delve deeply into the vast array of data in the game of football. I worked with data across the entire business of the sport, including the Salary Cap, game stats and contract analysis, electronic medical records, and player performance information. I learned the importance of capturing and connecting every bit of information because it very likely would become a valuable asset to the organization.

I co-founded RockDaisy AMS to deliver value from data by making complex information easily accessible and understandable—one of our key targets is athletes and their supporting organizations. Athletes produce a wide array of performance, fitness, and effort information. This article discusses a small segment of what can be accomplished by collecting wearable GPS data, layering in conditional formatting to spot outliers, and connecting it with the broader base of data accumulated for every athlete.

Key GPS Metrics

The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a satellite-based navigation system that provides location and time information in all weather conditions. It is important because GPS devices are relied on to track athlete movement and physical activity accurately. GPS data can help coaches and trainers monitor their performance, recovery, and injury risk.^1,2

There are five key metrics that all GPS vendors make sure their devices track. These specific metrics are essential because they cover three separate areas of training: volume, intensity, and speed.

1. 1. Total distance covered: Provides information about the amount of ground covered by the athlete during a training session or game. It helps the coach determine the athlete’s intensity and workload and adjust their training program appropriately.³

 

1. 1. High-speed running distance: Measures the distance covered by an athlete at high speeds and provides information about the athlete’s explosive power, acceleration, and deceleration.⁴

 

1. 1. Accels/Decels: Both accelerations and decelerations can contribute significantly to a player’s load and are useful indicators of external load; therefore, their value within athlete monitoring seems to be gaining importance.⁵

 

1. 1. Sprint count: Measures the number of times an athlete exerted an effort that was above a defined speed threshold.

 

1. Maximum velocity: Provides information about the highest speed reached by an athlete during a training session or game and helps to determine their overall speed and agility.¹

A coach should be concerned if certain GPS metrics for a training session go above or below a certain threshold, as it can indicate a potential problem with the athlete’s performance or health. Share on X

A coach should be concerned if certain GPS metrics for a training session go above or below a certain threshold, as it can indicate a potential problem with the athlete’s performance or health. The specific thresholds for each GPS metric can vary depending on a number of factors, including the sport, the athlete’s position, and their individual characteristics. For example, a soccer player’s average speed during a game might be expected to be around 5–7 meters per second, while a sprinter’s maximum velocity might be expected to be about 10–12 meters per second.

However, some general guidelines are given below:

1. 1. Total distance covered: A decrease in total distance covered could indicate fatigue or injury, while an increase could indicate improved endurance.

 

1. 1. High-speed running distance: A decrease in the high-speed running distance could indicate a decrease in explosive power or an increased risk of injury, while an increase could indicate improved conditioning and reduced injury risk.

 

1. 1. Accels/Decels: A decrease in accels/decels could indicate fatigue or injury, while an increase could indicate improved conditioning and reduced injury risk.

 

1. 1. Sprint count: A decrease in sprint count could indicate a decrease in speed and agility, while an increase could indicate improved explosive power.

 

1. Maximum velocity: A decrease in maximum velocity could indicate a decrease in speed and agility, while an increase could indicate improved explosive power.

Comparing an athlete’s performance across two different periods is an effective way to see performance trends. For example, the RockDaisy Athlete Management System includes a Performance Comparison Date Range filter. The Performance Comparison Date Range filter can be set with a start and end date (e.g., the beginning and end of a season) to compare against daily data. This filter allows you to compare an athlete’s performance for a particular metric against their average for a season (or a comparison time frame you select).

The Performance Comparison Date Range filter also enables users to set standard deviation thresholds to understand a significant increase or decrease in an athlete’s performance.

This can be seen in the color coding of this Daily GPS Report (dashboard design provided by Benjamin Creamer, @coachbencreamer, Director of Sports Science at University of Washington).

The In-Season Average is key because it drives the functionality of the legend. If an athlete is within a certain standard deviation of their average, their data will be colored on the bucket they fall in. For example, if an athlete goes two standard deviations above their average for the season, that metric for the athlete will have a red background and be considered a “very hard” day.

It is important to note that these are general guidelines, and the specific thresholds for concern will depend on the individual athlete and their sport. Moreover, several other data sources can be useful to overlay with sports GPS data to get a complete picture of an athlete’s performance.^6–11

Other suggested metrics that can be overlayed with GPS data:

• • Heart rate data: By overlaying heart rate data with GPS data, coaches can better understand the athlete’s physiological response to exercise and determine if they are working at the appropriate intensity.

 

• • Biomechanical data: By overlaying biomechanical data such as joint angles and muscle activation patterns with GPS data, coaches can better understand the athlete’s movement patterns and identify any areas of movement that may be contributing to injury risk.

 

• • Nutrition data: By overlaying nutrition data with GPS data, coaches can better understand the impact of diet on the athlete’s performance and recovery.

 

• • Video analysis: By overlaying video analysis with GPS data, coaches can better understand the athlete’s technique and movement patterns and identify areas for improvement.

 

• Sleep data: By overlaying sleep data with GPS data, coaches can better understand the impact of sleep on the athlete’s performance and recovery.

Additional metrics can easily be imported from spreadsheets, from third-party APIs, or by leveraging customizable data collection forms. These metrics can then be easily overlayed with GPS data.

By combining GPS data with other data sources, coaches can understand the athlete’s performance more comprehensively and make more informed decisions about their training and injury prevention strategies.

By combining GPS data with other data sources, coaches can better understand an athlete’s performance and make more informed decisions about their training and injury prevention strategies. Share on X

RockDaisy has worked with multiple GPS vendors, and we understand the key performance indicators that are recorded during a training session. Our GPS report pack is a collection of GPS reports that are ready to use and/or can be customized to your needs. With our unique data visualization tools, we provide insight into your data outside of just the raw numbers. Feel free to contact us for more information.

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

References

1. Cummins C, Orr R, O’Connor H, and West C. “Global positioning systems (GPS) and microtechnology sensors in team sports: a systematic review.” Sports Medicine. 2012;43:1025–1042.

2. Theodoropoulos JS, Bettle J, and Kosy JD. “The use of GPS and inertial devices for player monitoring in team sports: A review of current and future applications” Orthopedic Reviews. 2020;12(1).

3. Aughey RJ. “Applications of GPS technologies to field sports.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 2011;6(3):295–310.

4. Rampinini E, Alberti G, Fiorenza M, et al. “Accuracy of GPS devices for measuring high-intensity running in field-based team sports.” International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015;36(01):49–53.

5. Wing C. “Monitoring Athlete Load: Data Collection Methods and Practical Recommendations.” Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2018;40(4):26–39.

6. Backhouse SH, Whitaker L, Patterson L, Erickson K, and McKenna J. “Social psychology of doping in sport: A mixed studies narrative synthesis.” Prepared for the World Anti-Doping Agency. 2016.

7. Backhouse SH and McKenna J. “Doping in sport: A review of medical practitioners’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs.” International Journal of Drug Policy. 2011;22(3):198–202.

8. Bădescu D, Zaharie N, Stoian I, Bădescu M., and Stanciu C. “A Narrative Review of the Link between Sport and Technology.” Sustainability. 2022;14(23):16265.

9. Halson SL. “Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes.” Sports Medicine. 2014;44(Suppl 2):139–147.

10. Seshadri DR, Drummond G, Craker J, Rowbottom, JR, and Voos JE. “Wearable devices for sports: new integrated technologies allow coaches, physicians, and trainers to better understand the physical demands of athletes in real time.” IEEE Pulse. 2017;8(1):38–43.

11. Wilkes JR, Walter AE, Chang A-M, et al. “Effects of sleep disturbance on functional and physiological outcomes in collegiate athletes: a scoping review.” Sleep Medicine. 2021;81:8–19.

12. Wisbey B, Montgomery PG, Pyne DB, and Rattray B. “Quantifying movement demands of AFL football using GPS tracking.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2010;13(5):531–536.

13. GPS Dashboard image (Figure 1). Dashboard design provided by Benjamin Creamer, Director of Sports Science at University of Washington.

Training in the private sector of sports performance exposes coaches to athletes in every age range. This comes as a surprise to no one; however, it can reveal a coach’s biases that can negatively affect certain segments of that age spectrum.

Having spent most of my time coaching in college athletics, working with younger athletes (middle and high school) wasn’t something I was accustomed to. As Coach Matt Tometz spoke about previously, I’ve quickly found out that youth athletes are not small adults. Treating and training them as such is more detrimental than it is elevating—in every sense, but in this context specifically, with regard to speed development.

Oftentimes, we hear coaches talk about the need for sprinters to be able to produce high levels of force. Force and strength are highly important to speed. Want to run faster? Train to produce higher amounts of force.

There is an amount of truth to this thought process: the ability to produce force is important. What happens to this foundational truth of speed development, however, when the athlete you are training is 13 years old? Is their ability to run faster still predicated on their ability to produce force? Not many 13-year-olds in the Chicago area have reached the strength level that many of these coaches say is a prerequisite to running fast. It seems that if force cannot be the differentiating factor in speed development, we have to search for answers elsewhere.

Therefore, every other corner of speed development must be explored before turning to force output: stride frequency (thigh velocity), ankle stiffness, rhythm and timing, the direction of force application, etc. All of these factors are more important qualities when training a younger athlete compared to total force output. Their ability to produce force will grow as they do. Now, if their ability to produce force grows in conjunction with their ability to orient their limbs through space quickly and in a coordinated fashion, then the application of that force will help.

A Missing Piece

Speed development for high-performance athletes can mirror that of the youth model to an interesting extent. Typically, when a collegiate athlete walks into our facility for the first time, it is on the back end of a collegiate career, and they are looking to continue playing at the next level (such as college football players coming to train for their Pro Days or soccer players with contracts to play overseas). One of the things that stands out about these athletes is a lack of the same qualities that we hammer away at with the younger population.

Many of these college/post-collegiate athletes are coming in after three or four (sometimes five-plus) years of training in college S&C programs that emphasized their ability to produce maximal force and deemphasized the qualities we try to capture with our youth athletes.

It seems that qualities like stiffness, frequency, rhythm and timing, etc. fall out of the athletic spectrum once strength and force output become an overriding emphasis of training. Share on X

To be clear, this is not an article on college S&C versus private sector performance. This is a review of the training qualities I’ve noticed as I’ve interacted with athletes of many ages and abilities. However, it seems that the qualities we have already talked about—stiffness, frequency, rhythm and timing, etc.—are the qualities that fall out of the athletic spectrum once strength and force output become an overriding emphasis of training.

While youth athletes are unable to rely on their limited ability to produce force for their speed development, the inverse is true for high-performance athletes. The force component has been trained SO much that it is relied on completely to “muscle” through speed workouts. To paint a mental picture of what this type of runner may look like: think strained, pulling, not bouncy off the ground, legs moving in slow motion, etc. (Not to say that it’s impossible to “muscle” your way to a fast run—it certainly is.) With many older athletes coming in at this point of training, the “non-force stuff” becomes an integral part of their training.

Of course, the ability to produce force is not completely ignored. Again, it is important. However, rarely have I found that the reason a high-level athlete is not fast is because they are not strong enough. They are, typically, plenty strong. They fall short because their ankles collapse on ground contact, their thigh velocity is slow, their rhythm in sprinting is awkward, and they fail to apply their strength in the right direction.

Recognizing problems is valuable, but solving problems is significantly more so. Here are five of the most common ways that I try and rectify the “not enough of anything except for force” situation:

1. Ankle Stiffness Variations

Video 1. A few common ankle-jump variations for building ankle stiffness: angled (light prowler in front to help maintain angle), forward and backward, alternating single leg. Ankle stiffness supports every phase of sprinting!

Interestingly, one of the populations of youth athletes that do come in physically prepared to sprint is basketball players. The stiffness and spring in their lower bodies compared to, say, their baseball counterparts is striking. Obviously, they need coaching on the technical aspects of sprinting, but physically, they have qualities that sprint coaches desire. Trying to build that spring in other athletes is a necessity. Unfortunately, years of bilateral strength work tend to loosen those springs.

2. A-Run Variations

Video 2. Two examples of the many possibilities of A-runs: banded in place A-run and ascending A-run.

3. A-Switch Variations

Video 3. A-switches have a near-infinite number of possibilities. Demonstrated here are an in-place A-switch, double A-switch, triple A-switch, and triple A-switch with bounce.

Getting the lower body to move quickly is a quality that is, again, built into “springier” athletes. Thigh velocity is an essential part of sprinting. Often, one of the issues for athletes with long training histories in the weight room is their inability to quickly “switch” the position of their legs while running.

A-switch and A-run variations are great tools for youth athletes because the drills train their ability to coordinate high-speed limb movements quickly and consciously. This is a great challenge for youth athletes, especially as they fight the awkwardness that puberty can bring. While higher-level athletes are not fighting the battles of puberty, we do want them to re-establish an emphasis on thigh velocity that may have been lost over the previous few years.

4. Single Leg Hurdle Step-Over Drill

Video 4. Progression used for single leg stepovers: walking single leg with hurdles, shuffling single leg with hurdles, shuffling single leg (no hurdles), shuffling single leg to bleed out.

5. Bounding Variations

Video 5. Again, there are many variations of bounding. Here are two I commonly use: sled bound and speed bound.

How do you objectively measure rhythm? It’s difficult. Still, I would venture to say that most coaches would agree that it’s important. Have you ever seen an athlete try to bound and then start to skip—or an athlete try to skip and then start bounding? Was that athlete fast? Probably not. Lack of rhythm? Maybe. Similar to the rest of this article—the athletes who tend to struggle with that rhythm are typically the more “force-driven” group.

Variations of all these drills are commonplace in our speed development workouts from youth through professional (of course, this is just a sample of those drills). None of them have any emphasis on higher force production.

It’s a Balancing Act

High-level athletes are high-level athletes for a reason. This seems obvious. Every successful athlete has physical qualities that make them successful. For some athletes, their ability to produce force sets them apart from their competitors. This, though, is not the superpower of every athlete.

The ability of some athletes to produce force sets them apart from their competitors, but this isn’t the superpower of every athlete. Many coaches are intent on training their athletes as if it is. Share on X

It seems that many coaches are intent on training all of their athletes as if it is. However, this training style can lead to adaptations that take away from the qualities that may make another, less force-dominant, athlete successful. It can act, instead, as their kryptonite. So, let’s lean into the superpowers of the athletes we work with (the qualities that make them fast!), and be mindful that not everyone is the same. Treating them as such is detrimental. Train a 13-year-old. See how well they do when you cue them to push the ground away further and harder (probably not well).

It’s interesting how funneled our thinking can get when we are only exposed to a specific population of athletes and how we create these truths about athletic development in our minds because every athlete we encounter comes from such a similar athletic playbook. But when one of those fundamental truths gets removed from the equation? How does that make you rethink the fundamental truths that no longer seem so fundamental?

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

For the past seven years, the month of March has brought the same fundamental problem: how do I take a group of high school track and field athletes and get them as fast as possible before that key first weekend in June? With this question, a few subordinate questions follow: What is the right balance of speed and endurance training? Is it worth sacrificing speed days to focus on building my athletes’ endurance, or is building speed the only thing that truly matters? And will the endurance part take care of itself as the season progresses?

These are the questions every sprint coach faces at the start of the season. But what are the strategies coaches use to find the answers to these questions? Truthfully, until this year, my strategy has been “listen to coaches who are more successful than I am and copy what they say,”—which is a tried-and-true coaching method. But sooner or later, every coach must decide what works for them, why it works for them, and if there is more than just anecdotal evidence to support these notions. More succinctly—as coaches, we must be prepared to give an answer for why we do what we do.

There are far too many athletes who exhibit symptoms of overtraining and are told to power through it in the name of getting better, says @DillonMartinez. Share on X

There are far too many athletes who exhibit symptoms of overtraining and are told to power through it in the name of getting better. It is even more concerning that many of these athletes are sprinters. Symptoms of overtraining include prolonged general fatigue, inability to relax, poor sleep, and a pervasive feeling of tension or depression. These symptoms increase when an over-worked athlete also has poor nutrition and inadequate sleep.

Overtraining can lead to various types of injuries in high school athletes, depending on the sport and the individual’s training regimen. Some of the common injuries that may result from overtraining in high school athletes include:

1. Stress fractures: Overtraining can cause repetitive stress on the bones, leading to tiny cracks known as stress fractures. This injury is common in athletes who participate in high-impact sports like basketball, soccer, and track and field.
2. Muscle strains: Overuse of muscles can lead to muscle strains, which can cause pain and weakness in the affected muscle. Athletes who participate in sports that require repetitive motions—such as baseball, tennis, and swimming—are particularly prone to muscle strains.
3. Tendinitis: Overtraining can cause inflammation of the tendons, leading to tendinitis. This injury is common in athletes who participate in sports that require repetitive movements, such as running, jumping, and throwing.
4. Joint pain: Overtraining can put excessive stress on the joints, leading to joint pain and inflammation. This injury is common in athletes who participate in sports that require a lot of jumping, such as basketball and volleyball.
5. Decreased immune function: Overtraining can weaken the immune system, making athletes more susceptible to illnesses and infections.
6. Mental and emotional fatigue: Overtraining can also cause mental and emotional fatigue, leading to decreased motivation, mood changes, and even depression.

As a result, it is crucial to prioritize balance in training routines by incorporating rest and recovery measures.

My purpose with this article is to give speed coaches tangible ideas for programming to increase endurance while also increasing max velocity. To achieve this balance, it is critical to explore alternative approaches to exposing athletes to the necessary levels of aerobic training. This approach should prioritize the athletes’ safety and overall health as they prepare for upcoming competitions.

Furthermore, it’s an added bonus if the training regimen can also enhance the athletes’ maximum velocities. By taking a holistic approach to training—not focusing just on endurance or just on speed development—coaches can ensure that their athletes not only perform at their best but also maintain their overall well-being.

My purpose with this article is to give speed coaches tangible ideas for programming to increase endurance while also increasing max velocity, says @DillonMartinez. Share on X

As I am working through my doctorate focusing on speed development and coaching, I decided it was time to see what the research says in this regard. The results of my personal lit review have impacted how I coach, but more importantly, I can now give evidence-backed reasons as to why I format our sprinting program the way I do. Diving into this type of research can be intimidating, as many of the words used in the articles can look like they’re from a different language, but once it is sifted through, the knowledge gained will be meaningful and impactful to any program.

The Dosage Debate

My research question centered around the idea of “minimal effective dosage” as it concerns cardiovascular endurance. This is a popular buzz term in the sprinting community as it pertains to speed development, but I was curious as to its relevance to the conditioning aspect of training as well. This question led to a 2012 article in the Journal of Physiology by Martin Gibala (et al.,) the Chair of the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University. This work, titled “Physiological Adaptations to Low-Volume, High-Intensity Interval Training in Health and Disease,” became the foundation for my training methodologies.

This study compared the effects of high-intensity, low-volume training to a more traditional steady-state, endurance-style modality (see table 1).

These training styles are very different. Group 1’s workout only had 2–3 minutes of work time, or time under tension, which is the traditional mark of how much work has been done. By contrast, group 2 had a total work time of 40–60 minutes a day! They did the same amount of work in a day that the high-intensity group did in the whole six-week study, for a cumulative 200–300 minutes of time under tension a week. This idea of time under tension is a derivative of the weightlifting and bodybuilding sect, and it has migrated into the heads of speed coaches.

Those who want to build lean muscle know that the more time under tension a muscle experiences, the more micro tears are created—and when those tears heal, it results in a larger muscle mass. This is a micro-trauma that induces a desired adaptation in the body. The point of this type of training is inflammation and muscle tears, both things we should aim to avoid in speed training.

Traditional thinking would say that because they did significantly more work, the second group would have better results than the high-intensity group. Surprisingly, this was not the case.

In the high-intensity group, which completed 90% less volume and spent 67% less time training, it was found that there were still “training induced markers of skeletal muscle and cardiovascular adaptations….” These adaptations included:

• Increased resting glucose levels in the blood.
• A reduced rate of glycogen use and lactate production during matched-work exercise.
• An increased capacity for whole body and skeletal lipid oxidation.
• Enhanced peripheral vascular structure and function.
• Improved exercise performance as measured by time to exhaustion tests.
• Increased maximal oxygen uptake.

These are significant findings, but are they corroborated by other studies looking at the same issue? The short answer is yes. These findings are supported by Burgomaster et al., 2005, 2008; Gibala et al., 2006; and Rakobowchuk et al., 2008. Furthermore, this type of training was shown to specifically improve athletic performance in competition, as proven using cycling time trial studies (Gibala et al., 2006; Little et al., 2010).

But ultimately, my question was, what is the “minimal effective dosage” as it pertains to cardiovascular endurance? This study, as well as another conducted by Burgomaster et al. in 2008 titled “Similar Metabolic Adaptations During Exercise After Low Volume Sprint Interval and Traditional Endurance Training in Humans,” both found that this training protocol increased max VO2 to the same extent as “traditional endurance training despite a markedly reduced time commitment and total training volume.” And if that wasn’t enough, Psilander et al. (2010) found that a single bout of low-volume, high-intensity training (7×30 seconds, 4 minutes rest) stimulated an increase in “mitochondrial gene expression that [was] comparable to or greater than the changes after more prolonged bouts (3 x 20 min at 67% of max VO2) of endurance exercise in well trained athletes.”

What Does This All Mean to Us as Coaches?

This all means we can chase speed, and as a result, our team will also become more conditioned. But the key is the intent; each rep conducted in these studies was done at max effort. This is the key to optimizing this training strategy for conditioning, and, conveniently enough, that is also how max velocity is increased.

This means we can chase speed, and as a result, our team will become more conditioned. But the key is the intent; each rep conducted in these studies was done at max effort, says @DillonMartinez. Share on X

The only way to get fast is to run fast. Our central nervous system (CNS) can only adapt to stimuli it has been exposed to in the case of speed development. You cannot get faster in any type of meaningful way if you are not training at max velocity, with max intent. How convenient that this type of training is also proven to increase VO2 max capacity in athletes!

Tangible Programming Ideas

What would a program look like that employs this type of training? In my programs, I don’t have any five-day cycle with more than two of these types of workouts, especially in the late portions of the season. Here is an example of how I set up a season.

Things to note from this setup.

• I count meet days as both speed and endurance days.
• I focus significantly more time on speed than I do on endurance. “The last 100 meters of a 400 are always going to hurt,” as Coach Tony Holler says.
• I place a very high priority on technique work. Having shorter workouts has resulted in significantly more time to focus on correcting form errors and developing good habits in my athletes’ running form.

In the past, I would have dedicated almost the first three weeks of the season to submaximal endurance work to “lay the foundation” of endurance for the late season. This is wrong on a few levels.

1. If my athletes lack speed, it won’t matter how in shape they are. I am training sprinters, not distance runners.
2. Emphasizing submaximal endurance work at the beginning of the season may not be the most efficient use of training time and resources. This is because submaximal endurance work tends to improve aerobic fitness, which may not be the limiting factor for sprinting performance and my athletes’ success on the track.
3. Focusing too much on endurance work early on in the season may lead to detraining of other important physical qualities such as power, strength, and speed, which are critical for sprinting performance. This could ultimately hinder an athlete’s ability to perform at their best during competitions later in the season.

Focusing too much on endurance work early in the season may lead to detraining of other important physical qualities such as power, strength, and speed, which are critical for sprinting performance. Share on X

Using speed work as a means to also train endurance has been a key method for success in my training programs.

Other Considerations

The beauty of less work is that there is less physical stress on the body. As track coaches, we are all too familiar with the plague of shin splints. Shin splints result from too much volume, too soon, with improper form. It has been shown that when runners land with a heel-first pattern, there is a higher propensity for shin splints to develop. When we are running submaximally, the likelihood that the heel strikes first also goes up.

Conversely, when athletes sprint, if they employ proper form, they land on the ball of their foot, reducing stress on the anterior tibialis and the risk of shin splints altogether. Also, the less time spent on training endurance, the more time open to focus on honing approaches, block starts, and other field event work. When your team is gearing up for a state run, all events must receive the appropriate amount of focus because every point matters!

Final Thoughts

In any type of training, we need to keep in mind the intended adaptations we are hoping to elicit. If we run submaximally, we can expect our bodies to become proficient at submaximal running. If we sprint at full speed, we can expect our body to understand that its needs to make the necessary adjustments to become proficient in that type of movement.

Make sure that when you program, what you select as a training modality will serve to further the goal of the adaptation you hope to target, says @DillonMartinez. Share on X

Make sure that when you program, what you select as a training modality will serve to further the goal of the adaptation you hope to target. For our purposes, you can be confident that if you focus on maximal exertion, you can expect also to see a growth in endurance in your athletes.

Chase speed. Gain endurance.

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

References

Burgomaster KA, Howarth KR, Phillips SM, et al. “Similar metabolic adaptations during exercise after low volume sprint interval and traditional endurance training in humans.” Journal of Physiology. 2008;586:151–160.

Gibala MJ, Little JP, van Essen M, et al. “Short-term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance.” Journal of Physiology. 2006;575:901–911.

Gibala MJ and McGee SL. “Metabolic adaptations to short-term high-intensity interval training: a little pain for a lot of gain?” Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. 2008;36:58–63.

Gibala MJ, Little JP, Macdonald MJ, and Hawley JA. “Physiological Adaptations to Low-Volume, High-Intensity Interval Training in Health and Disease.” Journal of Physiology. 2012;590(12):1077–1084.

Little JP, Safdar A, Wilkin GP, Tarnopolsky MA, and Gibala MJ. “A practical model of low-volume high-intensity interval training induces mitochondrial biogenesis in human skeletal muscle: potential mechanisms.” Journal of Physiology. 2010b;588:1011–1022.

Psilander N, Wang L, Westergren J, Tonkonogi M, and Sahlin K. “Mitochondrial gene expression in elite cyclists: effects of high-intensity interval exercise.” European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2010;110:597–606.

Rakobowchuk M, Tanguay S, Burgomaster KA, Howarth KR, Gibala MJ, and MacDonald MJ. “Sprint interval and traditional endurance training induce similar improvements in peripheral arterial stiffness and flow-mediated dilation in healthy humans.” American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2008;295:R236–R242.

Following the Jane Fonda era of at-home workouts (shout out to “Physical” on Apple TV), the ’90s introduced a new wave of fitness trends in the United States: Billy Blanks’ “Tae Bo,” Tony Little’s “Gazelle,” and Susan Sommers’ “Thighmaster”—just to name a few.

It wasn’t hard to notice fitness infomercials flooding the airwaves, all promising a slimmer figure to eager customers who yearned to remove the “work” from working out.

But amidst all the noise, one particular trend was actually offering sound advice. This upstart trend had a unique selling point: encouraging people to work out in a completely new direction—specifically, with exercises focused on the frontal plane (aka side-to-side movements), which was unlike any style of training currently marketed by traditional fitness brands.

Enter the slide board.

Now, if you were a comedy nerd like me, you might remember the 1995 Judd Apatow-penned cult comedy “Heavyweights,” which starred Ben Stiller and then up-and-coming actor Kenan Thompson. To this day, comedy cinephiles continue to echo the movie’s most famous tagline—“I’m feeling skinny, Tony!”—a response uttered by one of the blindly loyal disciples of Tony Perkis, the notorious, fat camp coach (played by Stiller) who was on a mission to slide pounds off his feeble camp counselors through painfully watchable slide board workouts.

But before slide boards got their big break on the big screen, the lateral movement was already underway two decades earlier—in a much cooler arena. (Trust me—the pun will make sense soon.)

From the Farmhouse to the Podium

The first slide boards actually date back to the 19th century, when Dutch speed skaters used wax-coated barn doors to practice their skating motions. But their impact in the U.S. wouldn’t emerge until centuries later, beginning in the 1970s with Eric Heiden—the former Olympic gold medalist speed skater who was the first to win gold medals in all five events (500m, 1,000m, 1,500m, 5,000m, and 10,000m).

Eric Heiden noticed a need for speed skaters to improve their performance on the ice through a dryland training tool that mimicked the lateral push movement relevant to the sport, says @JimmyTMartin. Share on X

After retiring from the sport, Heiden studied medicine, later becoming an orthopedic surgeon. He noticed a need for speed skaters to improve their performance on the ice through a dryland training tool that mimicked the lateral push movement relevant to the sport. So, with two wood bumpers, a slick plastic surface, and hospital-like booties to put over your sneakers, Heiden created “The Heiden Board” (go figure!), pioneering the movement of slide board use in the USA.

In the late ’80s, the success of the Heiden Board amongst the speed skating community soon inspired Dr. Louis Keppler—a former speed skater and fellow orthopedic surgeon—to follow in Heiden’s footsteps. While working as a team physician for the Cleveland Indians (now Guardians), Keppler began to notice an abundance of ACL and patellofemoral injuries in his athletic patients. This led Keppler to develop his own slide board training protocol called “The Keppler Method” (noticing a pattern here?). Keppler later patented his slide board, called “Euroglide” (never mind), and soon his method began to greatly impact the use case for slide boards in the rehabilitation space. Jeff Markland, a former NFL tight end for the Pittsburgh Steelers, used Keppler’s method to mend his career-ending knee injury.

The “Keppler Method” utilized a slide board for knee rehabilitation and provided patients with a specialized exercise program designed to help them recover from knee injuries or surgery. The program simulated skating motions and exercises that strengthen the muscles around the knee joint, improve range of motion, and promote healing.

Seeing firsthand the healing powers of Keppler’s method, Markland sought to find a way to bring this miracle rehab tool to the masses. This mission prompted him to partner with Reebok University’s Program Developer, Kathy Stevens, who was tasked with creating a successor program to their wildly popular “Step Reebok” series.

And in 1994, just a year before “Heavyweights” debuted, Slide Reebok introduced slide boards into the greater fitness community. These were the industry’s first roll-up board, paired with “slide aerobics” workouts that could be done both at home via VHS tape and in a group fitness setting at your local gym.

This wave of excitement for slide boards soon inspired a new cast of celebrity-backed workouts from the likes of Denise Austin, Kathy Ireland, and Cheryl Ladd, all leading slide aerobics exercises on the new lightweight, roll-up model of slide boards. But despite Markland and Stevens’ best efforts to inspire the next generation of lighter-weight slide boards and aerobics-inspired workouts, users outside of the step aerobics crowd weren’t getting on board (pun intended). Additionally, the roll-up design—though convenient to move and store—lacked the durability and stability needed to convince customers to get on board day in and day out.

Soon after, Reebok pulled its funding for the program, and the end of the ’90s saw the end of the once-thriving slide aerobics era. But, as the buzzy ’90s trend was slowly losing its steam, a Northwestern University grad named Barry Slotnick was slowly reengineering a custom-made slide board that carried more weight (quite literally) and served the demographic that initially put slide boards on the map: athletes.

A native of Illinois, Slotnick built his first slide board in 1992 in his off-campus apartment as a cross-training tool for cyclists. His board soon caught the interest of the Northwestern tennis team, which was searching for a frontal-plane-dominant training tool to help players perform better while reducing the risk of knee injuries (meaning: side-to-side exercises). A year later, Slotnick received a call from the Chicago Bulls, requesting longer slide boards built for their taller athletes.

Slotnick’s board caught the interest of the Northwestern tennis team, which was searching for a frontal-plane-dominant training tool to help players perform better while reducing knee injury risk. Share on X

This opportunity prompted Slotnick to form his company, Varisport, and he began his journey as the American-made manufacturer of the UltraSlide Board—the fitness industry’s first eco-friendly, 8–10-foot slide board made for high school to Olympic athletes, as well as rehabilitation centers all across the country. But it wasn’t until 2004—just a decade later—that I would glide across (sorry—couldn’t help myself) Slotnick’s 10-foot UltraSlide board.

While training as a Division I college athlete on George Mason University’s wrestling team, I noticed this long white board on the floor of our strength and conditioning room.

“What’s this?” I asked.

“The most important piece of equipment in this room,” the trainer replied.

After only 10 minutes of continuous effort, I realized that this simply made product was not only one of the most versatile pieces of equipment I had ever used, but it actually packed a punch that I had never felt before as a high-caliber athlete. We did abdominal work, unilateral leg strength exercises, sliding push-ups, and sprinter slides—which instantly turned me into a sweaty and sore human.

Following the workout, I asked the trainer what he meant by this being the “most important piece of equipment in the room.” He proceeded to explain how most sports are multidirectional in nature. And given the historical pitfalls of most modern-day equipment—which primarily focus on sagittal plane exercises (aka forward and backward movements) on equipment such as treadmills, rowing machines, and bikes—it wasn’t surprising to him that athletes were experiencing a rise in muscular imbalances and injuries, specifically to their hips, groin, and knees, as a result of their bodies not being capable of moving in all directions.

These imbalances and injuries could have been avoided if there was a greater emphasis on adding frontal plane training to the equation—which is where the slide board comes in, says @JimmyTMartin. Share on X

Personally, I saw this firsthand with our school’s baseball, volleyball, tennis, and basketball players who had suffered a variety of hip and knee injuries while pivoting in action. And to my trainer’s point, these imbalances and injuries could have been avoided if there was a greater emphasis on adding frontal plane training to the equation—which is where the slide board comes in. Simply put: if athletes want to improve their odds of enjoying an injury-free career and train smarter for their sport, the slide board needs to be front and center with training.

And from that point forward, it was hard not to find a slide board under the feet of any athlete when walking through our training room doors.

Next Slide, Please

Fast forward to 12 years later, when I was creating the concept for Brrrn with Johnny Adamic to launch the world’s first and only cool temperature (50°F) fitness experience in New York City. We both knew that we needed a workout that would give people goosebumps but in a different way. Johnny and I saw not just a need to change the conversation about temperature when it came to exercise but also the conversation about the direction that we move when we exercise.

I spoke about my experience using a slide board as an athlete and with my personal training clients and the value it brought to the health of our bodies. In my opinion, the key selling point of the slide board was how it offered the right balance of being fun and challenging. It offered the user a way to experience a novel movement that would keep their interest in real time while also raising their heart rate, increasing muscular fatigue, and flooding their skin with sweat in such a short period.

From that point on, we sought to redesign the slide board so that it could not only stand the test of time but also wow customers of all ages and abilities in the heart of fitness in New York City. So, when it came to finding the right person to help us design our Brrrn Board, only one name came to mind: Barry Slotnick of UltraSlide. Through this collaboration, Johnny and I were able to celebrate the past in real time by designing our signature product with an industry leader who would be threading his legacy through our brand.

From our launch in 2018 until March 2020, we had more than 23,000 customers through our studio doors and received press from The New York Times, “Live with Kelly and Ryan,” “Good Morning America,” and Bloomberg TV and Radio (and many, many more) for putting slide boards back on the map. And given the overwhelming interest from our customers, we were prompted to develop a Peloton-inspired at-home fitness workout built around the unique programming we had done thousands of times in our studio. After brainstorming ways to develop this fitness experience, Slotnick eventually became an investor in our company.

As fate would have it, however, the pandemic forced our company to make a “lateral move” and focus our entire efforts on creating a direct-to-consumer business inspiring users to get on board with lateral movement training. After a few months of redirecting our efforts, filming hundreds of classes with 20+ instructors, and building an e-commerce platform from scratch, we proudly launched our on-demand fitness platform built around our newly made 5–6-foot adjustable Brrrn Board.

To date, we’ve received investments from the likes of Apolo Ohno (8x Olympic medalist and the most decorated U.S. winter athlete of all time), been featured on “The Today Show,” and received awards from Men’s Health, Women’s Health, Good Housekeeping, and Rolling Stone Magazine. We also created the industry’s first and only accredited slide board training certification (recognized by NASM, ACE, and NCSF), which educates health and fitness professionals about properly applying slide-board-based exercises for one-on-one training as well as small and larger group fitness classes.

We’ve also become an instrumental training tool for youth and adult athletes in sports like hockey, baseball, wrestling, and pickleball. We’ve helped physical therapists help their patients rehab their knee and hip injuries post-surgery. We also increased attendance and retention for many boutique and big box studios by creating impactful programming through Brrrn’s unique slide board training methodology.

As an innovator, I believe you have a responsibility to improve the systems of your predecessors. And with the Brrrn Board, we’ve distilled the best qualities from the slide board these past few decades to create an inimitable fitness experience that can serve every body.

I would argue that you won’t find a more multipurpose, multidirectional training tool that offers a rehabilitative yet competitive experience than a slide board. Fun fact: our Brrrn branded “taps” slide (below) can allow your body to access all three planes of motion in just one movement.

Most importantly, in a world where we are dodging in and out of the way of obstacles and threats to move closer to our desired goals, the slide board serves as the most underrated longevity tool in the fitness industry. By preparing you to move in any direction that life may take you, the slide board can allow you to do the things you love for longer by providing a well-rounded fitness experience that is enjoyable and accessible—both in price and in use.

The slide board can allow you to do the things you love for longer by providing a well-rounded fitness experience that is enjoyable and accessible—both in price and in use, says @JimmyTMartin. Share on X

So, whether your clients are youth athletes (hockey coaches), fitness enthusiasts (personal trainers or studio owners), or older adults (physical therapists), I can’t recommend the benefits of slide board training enough when it comes to improving balance, coordination, upper/lower body strength, core stability, and overall athletic performance.

Hopefully, you can look forward to lateral movement training as much as I do and are open to sliding this incredible training tool into your weekly workout routine!

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

The handheld dynamometer (HHD) market has exploded as strength coaches and rehab professionals have adapted the evidence from taking objective measurements to use for the monitoring and safe return to sport. Not only have sales of classic dynamometers such as the MicroFET and Lafyette HHD increased, but newly developed app-based dynamometers have emerged (figure 1 below). One of the new arrivals is Kinvent’s K-Push.

Kinvent sells a separate K-Pull pull-type dynamometer, and readers should also check out this article to determine what HHD to purchase. This particular review only focuses on the K-Push.

Technical Specifications

Push dynamometers generally have less load capacity than pull dynamometers, and the K-Push is advertised with a 90-kilogram load capacity. However, its true load capacity is 135 kilograms, and users can feel confident consistently hitting that threshold. This makes it ideal for testing the common muscle groups, such as the hip complex, hamstrings, shoulders, quadriceps, and neck.

Rate of force development (RFD) at different time points has been a metric that users increasingly want, but accurate RFD requires a high sampling rate. The device is the top in the market with 1,000 Hz, which is recommended for RFD testing. This means the device records 1,000 data points per second.

The K-Push’s advertised sampling rate is 250 Hz, and the default is set at 125 Hz in-app, but users can go into the app to select the 1,000 Hz option if they want to acquire more accurate RFD metrics. Share on X

The K-Push’s advertised sampling rate is 250 Hz, and the default sampling rate is set at 125 Hz in-app, but users can go into the app to select the 1,000 Hz option if they want to begin acquiring more accurate RFD metrics. The engineers state that the sensors can handle up to 2,000 Hz, but at this time, the settings only allow it to be set to 1,000 Hz. As a reference, gold-standard isokinetic dynamometers, such as the HUMAC Norm, have sampling rates up to 2,500 Hz.¹

As with many of Kinvent’s products, the K-Push’s battery life is very impressive, and its charge time remains short. With multiple uses per work hour, the tested device only required charging twice over the four months I used it. It also utilizes USB type C to charge, which is convenient since that is what charges most devices nowadays—no excessive cords around the office/desk. Connectivity issues have been reported in Kinvent’s smaller K-Force force plates; however, those issues are not present with the K-Push. The device quickly synced every time within seconds.

Hardware

The entire hardware and design have received updates from its second-generation iteration. The silicon pad is robust, flexible, and comfortable, whereas the generation 2 pad was flimsy and connected by weak magnets (figure 2). The cover has resisted drops, punctures, and any kind of damage over heavy usage (and a few drops—whoops!).

The most welcome change is the addition of a strong magnet on the back. Gone is a slide-and-click attachment system, replaced by a magnet that mounts to useful attachments such as handles, straps, clamps, and anything metal (figure 3). This makes standardizing and choosing good fixation easy and accessible (figure 4).

The addition of a strong magnet on the back is easily the best feature of the Kinvent K-Push, as fixation is often challenging yet so important for accuracy and reliability, says @MuyVienDPT. Share on X

The magnet itself is strong. It took 20 pounds of force before I pulled it off. (Yes, I tested it five times with a pull dynamometer.) This is easily the best feature of the device, as fixation is often challenging yet so important in accuracy and reliability.

Lastly, the rigid button has been replaced with a rubberized one. Although it lacks the tactile stiffness of the generation 2 K-Push, it is more responsive than the buttons on other Kinvent gen 3 devices.

There is now also a “button start” feature: once the test is set up, users do not need to push “Start” on the app but can just press the button on the device to begin the test. This change was made to save users time, but it doesn’t improve user experience as it just avoids one extra button push. Additionally, the button push function does not also work as a “Next” function: this would be an extremely useful add when clinicians are going through protocols of bundle tests. It’s a great idea but not fully utilized, given where the software is currently.

Overall, the generation 2 K-Push was impressive and great to use, and the engineers somehow improved the hardware even more.

The Software

A short time before the generation 3 release, Kinvent released the K-Physio app and discontinued support for their K-Force app. The K-Physio app is a significant upgrade, and it’s what all users will want. This K-Physio app now gives users access to a lot more data, such as RFD, impulse, and fatigue (figure 6).

The visualization is great and defaults with peak force symmetry as the main metric displayed. It also gives you the average peak force of each rep as you scroll farther, but it does not give you the average of the three. Some people may want the average symmetry, but I think peak force among all reps is the way to go. Users can also delete the reps they do not want to keep. Lastly, a recent update now publishes normative data with standard deviations for popular tests.

Not only can users make any test they want with their own custom picture and description, but they can also build their own protocols, says @MuyVienDPT. Share on X

Another great feature of the software is its customization. Not only can users make any test they want with their own custom picture and description, but they can also build their own protocols. For example, users can string together eight different hip tests to efficiently analyze the hip complex without manually selecting each test separately. This saves an incredible amount of time, especially when the actual tester memorizes the sequence. For the pre-programmed assortment of tests, you can customize many settings, such as the number of reps, length of tests, and prep time between reps. The number of limbs can also be customized (figure 5).

PDF reports can be customized and generated on the app, which can then be directly emailed to patients and stakeholders.

As I mentioned in other reviews, Kinvent has a desktop platform—however, it is lacking (figure 7). Users who access their data on their desktop computer will miss out on 90% of the mobile app’s functionality. Among the missing features on the desktop app at the time of this review are the ability to:

• Delete test sessions.
• Edit users.
• See advanced metrics (for jumps).
• Customize reports.
• Make/sort groups.
• Administer a test (the most important one).

The desktop app does not pick up or allow you to enter the demographic info of participants. For rehab specialists who need to document and multi-task on their laptop, this hinders their daily operations.

As usual, Kinvent’s training modes are what makes their software great. These are really simple games that include Karl the Kangaroo scuba, catching fruit, and playing bubble blaster (see figure 8). As the level gets more challenging, users have to use more force and power to accomplish their goal. There’s also more feedback-driven training, such as isometric training that users can precisely set for 1RM-based force (figure 8).

Most people who only have the dynamometer will do well with the $350 starter package (tables 1 and 2), but those who also have the Kinvent force plate should upgrade to the Premium or Excellence packages.

Overall Score

Score: 9.5/10

Kinvent K-Push is the best handheld dynamometer on the market, with a slick mobile app and top-of-the-line technical specs. The build quality, easy fixation, customizability, battery, training modes, and visualizations will make people want to use it often for testing and as an intervention. If an updated desktop application comes out, consider this a 10/10.

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

References

1. Maffiuletti NA, Aagaard P, Blazevich AJ, Folland J, Tillin N, and Duchateau J. “Rate of force development: physiological and methodological considerations.” European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2016 Jun;116(6):1091–116. doi: 10.1007/s00421-016-3346-6. Epub 2016 Mar 3. PMID: 26941023; PMCID: PMC4875063.

Despite the popularity of core training in fitness, rehab, and performance spheres, I have a sneaking suspicion that we aren’t all talking about the same thing. I’m not even sure we all agree on what the core even is, and maybe more importantly, how to best monitor and train it to reduce injuries or improve performance.

Let me explain.

You often hear coaches talk about training the “core,” but what does that even mean? I liken it to someone saying they trained their “legs.” What specifically did you train? What muscle groups? What contraction types and speeds? Endurance, max strength, or power? Which planes of motion? It’s such a vague descriptor that it’s essentially meaningless.

I’m not even sure we all agree on what the core even is, and maybe more importantly, how to best monitor and train it to reduce injuries or improve performance, says @CoachGies. Share on X

The term “core training” is often used as a catch-all for low-intensity exercises that isolate certain trunk muscles, but not always. Coaches will lump together rotational medicine ball throws, crawls, carries, loaded trunk movements, and other exercises under the singular banner of core stability.

Despite decades of related research on the topic, three distinct dilemmas have emerged that I believe are holding back our industry’s understanding and implementation of core training in both the S&C and rehab professions:

1. No universal understanding of what core stability even is.
2. Inadequate testing methods.
3. No clear training framework.

But before we explore my justification for this hot take, it would be worthwhile to review how people can hold such differing opinions from one another. There are two cognitive biases that may help illuminate these problems (they might also help you understand the never-ending source of S&C Twitter conflicts):

1. The Anchoring Bias.
2. The False Consensus Effect.

The anchoring bias is the tendency to be overly influenced by the first piece of information we hear (for example, “Core training can prevent back injuries” or “The best core training involves anti-extension/rotation exercises”). All future information is then processed through this reference point rather than being objectively viewed.

It’s also very difficult to counteract this bias if you aren’t actively trying to challenge your priors (echo chambers, anyone?). Think of it this way: if you are a young intern and the facility you begin your career at is adamant that barbell squats and deadlifts are all an athlete needs for core development, you will view all future core stability information through that lens. Similarly, if you are a physiotherapy student and are told every patient needs isolated motor control exercises to engage the core properly, you are more likely to continue with those views going forward.

The false consensus effect is the tendency to overestimate how much others agree with your beliefs, behaviors, attitudes, and values. You overestimate the number of individuals that think like you and believe the vast majority of people share your training beliefs. Most coaches likely believe the rest of the industry thinks like them, and those who disagree are just outliers (or idiots). If you think most people think like you, you will be less likely to seek out differing opinions to challenge your beliefs because, well, why would you if you’ve got things figured out?

In an industry that loves to dichotomize anything and everything, core training is no exception. Some coaches preach the need to include isolated and specific exercises to target the core, or else this area will become underdeveloped and expose you to injury or poor performance. Others are confident that no direct training is needed and that barbell exercises and athletic movements will train the core just fine. Some think the spine shouldn’t move and be trained in static positions or with bodyweight movements only; others believe the spine should move freely and be loaded, sometimes in extreme positions.

It seems that many coaches hold strong beliefs on this topic, with many believing their views on core training are right while others are wrong.

The Three Dilemmas Holding Us Back

As I present the rest of the article, try to keep both the anchoring bias and false consensus effect in mind. Perhaps you will start to reflect on how you’ve fallen for both of these, not just around core training but with other training concepts as well.

1. The Definition Dilemma

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart was famously quoted as saying, “I know it when I see it” when attempting to define pornography. The same could be said about the core and core training. Most people would largely know what those terms mean and what a core exercise is if they saw one performed.

But does everyone have the same understanding of what the core or core training is despite using the same terms?

Are we really speaking the same language?

The muscles attaching to the spine are often referred to as the “core”; however, the exact anatomical makeup of the core is not unanimously agreed upon among coaches and researchers.¹ The functional capacity of these muscles is often termed “core stability” and has been the subject of extensive scientific investigation over the last 30 years. However, despite extensive research, there is still considerable confusion as to the exact definition of core stability.^2–4

Without clear definitions in place, the interpretation of research data depends on the reader’s CURRENT conceptual understanding of core stability. We see this play out all the time on social media. Share on X

Without a clear series of definitions in place, the interpretation of research data is dependent on the reader’s current conceptual understanding of core stability. We see this play out all the time on social media. A study comes out, and there are wildly different interpretations of the results and conclusions, which leads to extensive debates, name-calling, and confused bystanders. As such, several researchers have highlighted that research cannot advance on this topic unless there is some definitional consensus.^3–5

Many of the definitions in use today are too broad or too vague to provide much practical worth. They do little to inform coaches on which physiological qualities to address. Researchers have suggested that the diversity of definitions in the literature hampers the ability to summarize research findings and draw clear conclusions.⁶ Some of the definitional differences could be due to the context in which they are viewed.³ For example, in rehabilitation sectors, where treatment goals revolve around decreasing pain and returning to function, the concept of core stability and how to train it may look different than in S&C circles, where the priority is improving highly dynamic sporting movements.

Broadly speaking, there are three common terms used in the literature:⁷

1. Core endurance: The ability to maintain a position for an extended period or perform multiple reps.
2. Core strength: The ability to produce muscular force or intra-abdominal pressure.
3. Core stability: The capacity of the stabilizing system to maintain intervertebral neutral zones during various activities.

What causes confusion is that these terms are often used interchangeably in the literature. Similarly, there is no agreement on the appropriate use of these terms in practical circles.¹

Another term that is becoming more prevalent is “lumbopelvic control” (LPC)—or some variation of this—which is defined as “the ability to actively mobilize or stabilize the lumbopelvic region in response to internally or externally generated perturbations.”⁸ Other terms commonly used to describe the core include trunk, torso, and fascial slings. Without a clear agreement on what the definitions are and when to best use the terms, it ultimately boils down to the coach’s interpretation and previous experience with using those terms.

2. The Testing Dilemma

There are many established and validated testing procedures that help assess a wide range of functional and athletic capacities. These include muscular strength, muscular endurance, specific energy systems, power, and linear and multidirectional speed. In regard to testing core stability, there seem to be no validated tests capable of assessing the full spectrum of functional capacities of the core.⁹

For instance, the most commonly used tests for assessing the core consist of timed isometric holds (e.g., prone plank). Although these muscular endurance tests are reliable,¹⁰ they do not reflect the force and velocity demands seen during sporting activities and are likely to be inappropriate for athletic populations.⁹ It’s important to note that many of the most common core stability assessments were originally developed for individuals with low back pain (LBP).¹¹ These tests would obviously be performed at a slower speed or be isometric in nature, rather than generating rapid muscular contractions, yet have seemed to permeate performance spheres and athletic testing batteries.

It’s important to note that many of the most common core stability assessments were originally developed for individuals with low back pain, says @CoachGies. Share on X

Similarly, there are currently no practically viable or validated methods available to assess maximal core strength for S&C coaches, although this quality appears relevant to athletic populations.^12,13 Critically, it remains unknown whether—or how—coaches are monitoring core stability in practice. This is an important point because core stability training is a widely used tool in our industry, with nearly every coach implementing some sort of protocol to enhance this area. Yet, without established and validated tests to assess distinct physical qualities associated with core stability (e.g., strength versus endurance versus power), it’s impossible to discern the practical value of various core stability training programs and protocols.

3. The Training Dilemma

There are many widely accepted and validated training frameworks to develop either global physiological capacities (e.g., maximum strength or peak power) or specific morphological adaptations (e.g., eccentric training to increase muscle fascicle length). The same doesn’t seem to be true regarding training the core, as there is no broadly accepted training framework. To make matters worse, most coaches believe their way of training the core is superior or believe most coaches are doing what they are doing already (refer back to the Cognitive Biases section).

As with testing methods, many of the core stability training recommendations in the literature have been developed from research examining rehabilitation methods for chronic LBP.¹⁴ These exercises have since spread to training programs designed for athletes but have been heavily criticized as inappropriate for improving physical performance in healthy athletic populations.¹⁵ You can see how these rehab-based recommendations have seeped into the industry, as most coaches have at least heard concepts relating to “activate your core” prior to doing some sort of movement or even, more popularly, Dr. Stuart McGill’s “Big 3” exercises to prevent LBP.

Due to the absence of clear and robust training frameworks, current practical applications seem to vary extensively.¹ There is considerable debate as to whether core stability should be trained using isolated exercises, classical barbell movements, and/or athletic movement drills.^4,15,16 I’m sure every coach has heard people debate the merits of specific exercises or methods for developing the core.

Several attempts at creating more complete and well-rounded training frameworks have been proposed in the literature.^3,17 However, whether these models improve performance or prevent injury has not been rigorously tested or validated. This bears repeating: There are currently no validated—or thoroughly tested—training frameworks for developing the core.

This bears repeating: There are currently no validated—or thoroughly tested—training frameworks for developing the core, says @CoachGies. Share on X

Either the science is sparse or inadequate (e.g., training interventions with too few subjects or too short a duration), or the programs are based more on theory or practical coaching experience. This is not to say training methods designed from coaching experience aren’t valid or useful, but we may need to temper the strength of our beliefs if the scientific backing just isn’t there. This lack of guidance, coupled with opposing opinions on best practices, leaves S&C coaches with a confusing diversity of mixed messages.

So, What Do We Do Now?

While it’s beyond the scope of this article to solve any of these dilemmas, that doesn’t mean all is lost. There are two areas of improvement that we can work on from both a scientific and practical perspective.

1. Say What You Mean, and Mean What You Say!

First, there needs to be an alignment of terminology. Precision of speech is critical if we are to effectively convey our thoughts to athletes and other coaches. Using similar-sounding—yet fundamentally different—terms does little to advance our understanding or application of core training.

Look, I get it; when talking to an athlete or someone who isn’t a coach, using some terms interchangeably might not make much difference in the quality of training received. But as a profession, the more precise and aligned we can be in our terminology, the better. I would urge you—the reader—to be aware of how these terms are being used in both academic and practical contexts.

Academically

When reading a paper on core stability training, dig into the methods section and see how the authors actually define these terms and what exercise interventions they use. I bet you’d be surprised at what you find!

Many research papers that assess or implement “core strength” methods (as specified by their titles, introductions, and conclusions) often use muscle endurance exercises and protocols (e.g., planks, sit-ups, or other high-rep bodyweight exercises). For argument’s sake, this would be akin to a research paper examining “lower body strength training” and concluding it doesn’t have an impact on vertical jump ability in high school athletes. But if the training intervention only utilized wall sits as their strength training exercise, I’m sure many coaches would take issue with people saying that lower-body strength training isn’t useful for athletes because this doesn’t look at the whole spectrum of lower-body strength training exercises or methods.

I would also assume that wall sits weren’t the first exercise you thought of when you read “lower body strength training.” You would probably define it as a muscular endurance exercise or a long-duration-yielding isometric, and that’s my point. From a methodology standpoint, understanding precisely what a research paper is investigating will allow you to determine the merits of the exercises investigated rather than assuming their worth based on the general terms used by the authors had you not dug a little deeper.

Practically

Nearly all coaches will have assumptions and personal preferences about what constitutes “core training.” It’s almost so general of a term as not to really mean much. If a coach says they did core training with an athlete, you might have an assumption of what they did, but you really have no idea what exercises were used or what physical qualities were developed. Some coaches might be more biased toward dynamic spinal movements with external loads, some might only implement isometric bodyweight holds, and others might view the classical barbell exercises as sufficient.

Consider how Alex Natera has improved our practical understanding of isometric training by breaking the concept into several distinct categories to target specific qualities for field sport and track athletes. Or how Lachlan Wilmot’s Plyometric Continuum caught fire because it categorized jump-based exercises into distinct and specific categories to improve exercise selection. Rather than falling back on umbrella terms like “isometric training” or “plyometrics,” they expanded those concepts and brought specific terminology to the forefront so everyone spoke a similar language.

Without a clear set of terms to describe the complexity of core training, it will be tough to determine exactly what other coaches mean when they say ‘core training,’ says @CoachGies. Share on X

Without a clear set of terms to describe the complexity of core training, it will be tough to determine exactly what other coaches mean when they say “core training.” Again, I would urge you to think deeply about which terms you use and if they make the most sense for the physiological adaptations you are looking to develop or the phase of training for the athlete. A non-exhaustive list of possible terms you can use to describe core exercises more precisely includes:

• Core strength (e.g., 5–8RM weighted decline sit-up)
• Core endurance (e.g., bodyweight sit-ups to volitional exhaustion)
• Core power (e.g., split stance rotational medball throw)
• Trunk flexion (e.g., sit-up), hip flexion (e.g., hanging leg raise), lateral trunk flexion (e.g., side bend), trunk/hip extension (e.g., 45° back extension), trunk rotation (e.g., Russian twist)
• Prone (e.g., front plank) or supine (e.g., deadbug)
• Dynamic (pro-movement, e.g., sit-up) or static (anti-movement, e.g., Pallof hold)
• Isolated (e.g., crunch or side plank) or global (e.g., back squat or Turkish get-up)
• Low load (e.g., bodyweight front plank for max time) or high load (e.g., front plank with 45-pound plate on hips for 20 seconds)
• Lumbopelvic stability (e.g., bird dog with minimal movement in the lumbopelvic region)

The more precise your terminology, the more easily coaches can understand what you are actually implementing. You will also be able to assess whether your “core training” program checks off all the boxes you want it to or if there is a quality you might be neglecting.

2. Utilize a More Comprehensive Core Training Framework

Finally, the development of a more comprehensive core training framework for athletic performance is needed.  Often, core training can be an afterthought, programmed haphazardly at the end of sessions or, even worse, utilized as a “filler” to check a box.

Like many coaches, I was intrigued by Lachlan Wilmot’s Plyometric Continuum, as it opened my eyes to how poorly I was prescribing jump training with my athletes. I decided the way I implemented core training could benefit from a similar framework of simple and clear progressions for the beginner to the advanced athlete. This way, I could more easily slot an athlete into the progression streams that make the most sense or select the best exercises for the sport or time of year.

Thus was born my version of a Core Training Continuum.

This Core Training Continuum breaks down core training into the big rocks coaches need to consider when progressing athletes or selecting the most appropriate stimulus for the time of the year. Share on X

This breaks down core training into what I feel are the big rocks coaches need to consider when progressing athletes or selecting the most appropriate stimulus for the time of the year. It also provides guidelines on how to prescribe the volume and loading for each category to ensure the actual adaptation you are after is properly developed. The key categories I identified in regard to developing a well-rounded trunk consist of:

1. Endurance – Static (long-duration submaximal holds)
2. Endurance – Dynamic (high-repetition submaximal movements)
3. Strength – Static (short-duration maximal holds)
4. Strength – Dynamic (low-repetition maximal movements)
5. Power (high rate of force development movements)

All five of these categories are further divided into four subcategories pertaining to the location of the torso being trained.

1. Anterior trunk (trunk/hip flexion or anti-extension, prone or supine)
2. Lateral trunk (lateral flexion or anti-lateral flexion)
3. Posterior trunk (extension or anti-flexion)
4. Rotational (rotation or anti-rotation)

*Notes:

• Strength – Dynamic – Posterior could be lumped into the hip extension movement category rather than a specific core training category.
• Power – Lateral trunk would likely be too difficult to perform; the Rotational category would likely be sufficient.
• Power – Anterior and Posterior trunk may be considered full-body power drills and not strictly a core training category.

Nearly all core exercises can be categorized under this framework to create a menu of possible training options when programming for specific athletes. This continuum can have applications in long-term athlete development, rehabilitation, or performance settings and be used to select individual exercises based on the needs of an athlete or to create core circuits targeting a specific quality in several torso locations.

The problem with making a training model like this too detailed or all-encompassing is that it becomes too rigid to work in the real world, says @CoachGies. Share on X

I made this framework as simple and straightforward as possible. The problem with making a training model like this too detailed or all-encompassing is that it becomes too rigid to work in the real world. Obviously, these guidelines can be broken in the right context, but these guidelines will be suitable for the majority of situations.

Is it perfect? No. But no training model is. The more coaches can implement similar types of frameworks for implementing core training, while using clear terminology on what they are doing, the more effective their training interventions will be.

Final Thoughts

Outliers aside, there doesn’t seem to be a widely accepted method for developing all facets of core function over the long term. Some facilities or coaches may have developed systems like this in isolation, but to move our industry forward, these ideas need to reach a broader audience, with more rigorous and long-term studies performed to improve our confidence in their worth.

The goal is that this article helps shine a light on some of the dilemmas surrounding our industry’s current assumptions on core training, as well as some of the underlying cognitive biases responsible. Finally, it’s my hope that the Core Training Continuum can help coaches develop their own framework for developing better core training programs.

The preceding article is based on Nick’s master’s thesis, “Current Perspectives around Core Stability Training in the Sports Performance Domain.” To read the full text, click here.

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

References

1. Clark DR, Lambert MI, and Hunter AM. “Contemporary perspectives of core stability training for dynamic athletic performance: A survey of athletes, coaches, sports science and sports medicine practitioners.” Sports Medicine – Open. 2018;4(1):32.

2. Borghuis J, Hof AL, and Lemmink KAPM. “The Importance of Sensory-Motor Control in Providing Core Stability.” Sports Medicine. 2008;38(11):893–916.

3. Hibbs AE, Thompson KG, French D, Wrigley A, and Spears I. “Optimizing performance by improving core stability and core strength.” Sports Medicine. 2008;38(12):995–1008.

4. Wirth K, Hartmann H, Mickel C, Szilvas E, Keiner M, and Sander A. “Core Stability in Athletes: A Critical Analysis of Current Guidelines.” Sports Medicine. 2017;47(3);401–414.

5. Martuscello JM, Nuzzo JL, Ashley CD, Campbell BI, Orriola JJ, and Mayer JM. “Systematic review of core muscle activity during physical fitness exercises.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research/National Strength & Conditioning Association. 2013;27(6):1684–1698.

6. Silfies SP, Ebaugh D, Pontillo M, and Butowicz CM. “Critical review of the impact of core stability on upper extremity athletic injury and performance.” Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy. 2015;19(5):360–368.

7. Saeterbakken AH. “Muscle activity, and the association between core strength, core endurance and core stability.” Journal of Novel Physiotherapy and Physical Rehabilitation.” 2015;2(2):028–034.

8. Chaudhari AMW, McKenzie CS, Pan X, and Oñate JA. “Lumbopelvic control and days missed because of injury in professional baseball pitchers.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014;42(11):2734–2740.

9. Prieske O, Muehlbauer T, and Granacher U. “The Role of Trunk Muscle Strength for Physical Fitness and Athletic Performance in Trained Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Sports Medicine. 2016;46(3):401–419.

10. Waldhelm A and Li L. “Endurance tests are the most reliable core stability related measurements.” Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2012;1(2):121–128.

11. Shinkle J, Nesser TW, Demchak TJ, and McMannus DM. “Effect of core strength on the measure of power in the extremities.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research/National Strength & Conditioning Association. 2012;26(2):373–380.

12. Park J-H, Kim J-E, Yoo J-I, Kim Y-P, Kim E-H, and Seo T-B. “Comparison of maximum muscle strength and isokinetic knee and core muscle functions according to pedaling power difference of racing cyclist candidates.” Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation. 2019;15(3):401–406.

13. Raschner C, Platzer H-P, Patterson C, Werner I, Huber R, and Hildebrandt C. “The relationship between ACL injuries and physical fitness in young competitive ski racers: a 10-year longitudinal study.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2012;46(15):1065–1071.

14. Huxel Bliven KC and Anderson BE. “Core stability training for injury prevention.” Sports Health. 2013;5(6):514–522.

15. Lederman E. “The myth of core stability.” Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2010;14(1):84–98.

16. Behm DG, Drinkwater EJ, Willardson JM, and Cowley PM. “The use of instability to train the core musculature.” Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2010;35(1):91–108.

17. McGill S. “Core Training: Evidence Translating to Better Performance and Injury Prevention.” Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2010;32(3):33.

The state of Georgia has joined the nationwide surge of high schools investing in strength and conditioning and their athletes. Gainesville High School is the first location in Georgia I have seen in this new era of high school strength and conditioning, and it will be tough to beat! This facility is overseen by Taylor Williams, Director of Strength and Conditioning, and Nate Mathis, Director of Optimal Performance/Wellness. The duo is implementing training for injury rehabilitation (Mathis) all the way to training the potential next Heisman trophy winner (Williams) for the Red Elephants.

Video 1. Virtual tour of the Gainesville High School weight room.

Design

Coach Williams—who was at Gainesville during the renovation of the 10,000-square-foot facility—mentioned there were a lot of things that needed to change with the new $1.5 million space. Before that, the space held 32 racks and felt very cramped, so they decided to switch to 28 racks to allow for a better flow and spacing for their room.

One unique element is the garage door addition for the program and the facility, which I love.

“One of the major renovations to this room consisted of adding two garage doors, which are functional,” Williams said. “This allows our athletes to quickly transition from being inside the weight room to continuing their training sessions outside on the track/turf field area.”

I have said this many times; space is king, and especially for a high school strength coach, it’s everything. Gainesville chose Rogers and Pendulum Strength equipment because of their knowledge of using Rogers football equipment. I think this was the first time I had ever heard that Rogers made weight room equipment—the logo is burned into my brain after years of pushing a five-man sled as an offensive lineman, so I was also surprised to see that same brand on incredible weight room equipment.

I think a “new generation” shift between coaches choosing a full, high-density flooring throughout the space over the wood overlay is something that will stay, and it really does allow for a sharp-looking room. The space has a large middle opening with seven double-sided racks on each side. Coach Williams has the room split up into three areas:

• Lower body
• Upper body
• Explosive/plyometric area

Like many Division I football weight rooms, you see the adoption of the “pod rack method” here at Gainesville. The pod method creates an all-in-one-area training space for the athletes to come and complete the entire lift in that pod.

Purchasing

The hardest part of a weight room renovation project is deciding between all the best companies in the world to pick which one should outfit your place. The smallest detail can be what makes or breaks it for one company or another. The biggest decision-making factor for Gainesville was their familiarity with Rogers/Pendulum products, as well as the vision that the coaches needed to best outfit their athletes—small things like the bumper plates being suspended in a trough-type setup (instead of the traditional weight pegs) and the fact that the DC Blocks they bought can be stored under the racks to save space.

The hardest part of a weight room renovation project is deciding between all the best companies in the world to pick which one should outfit your place, says @johndelf99. Share on X

These are the tiny details that schools, facilities, and home gyms look for when purchasing, and I find it fascinating.

Another piece for Coach Williams was that the companies were trusted by places he trusted. “Their work speaks for itself,” Williams said. “Some of their best projects include Arkansas baseball and Michigan football.”

For all things sports science and wellness, Coach Mathis is in charge. The Gainesville weight room has it all, including:

• Massive TV screens to help with the delivery of the program.
• Perch VBT system for their racks to help track bar speed and bar path during lifting.
• Catapult, which they use for GPS data during field sessions or practice.

Seeing a high school invest not only in the equipment but also in the two coaches heading this charge is truly impressive. I know I’m just the facility and equipment guy, but I also wanted to highlight how special these two coaches are in this whole process. I always find it interesting to look deeper at incredible facilities, but full-time leaders in those spaces are what makes the equipment really special.

“The technology helps drive decision-making to ensure our athletes are provided with training that fits their individual needs and is transferable to their sport,” Coach Mathis said when I asked him why they wanted to include all the sports science tools in this project instead of buying more benches, bars, bands, etc.

Specialty Equipment

What else can you add to a place that has already thought of everything?

Coach Williams mentions some cool extra pieces they bought to really take their training to the next level. These pieces include DC Blocks, safety bars, neutral bars, flywheels, and finally, the nutrition station. I like to include DC Blocks in the specialty category because of how versatile they can be, and as a strength coach, that’s what we demand. How many different ways can I use this piece of equipment? Coach Williams does just that with them, between step-ups, block cleans, and injury prevention tools.

The specialty bar category is near and dear to my heart because I am such an advocate for them, especially for special population athletes and injured folks. Safety bars can be beneficial for upper extremity injured athletes to be able to do more than just leg press all day, every day. The trap bar is a staple for me because of all the uses a coach can get out of it; most importantly, it’s the safest and best way mechanically to deadlift.

They also designed a cardio/rehab area in the weight room that the coach can use to service the recovering athletes before they are released back into the herd…of Red Elephants. Finally, a key “specialty” piece—especially at the high school level—is the awesome nutrition station (seen in the virtual tour video).

The nutrition station will be the differentiator for what makes the Gainesville H.S. facility probably a top 10 facility in the state, no matter the sector—high school, college, pro, or private. Share on X

This is another piece that Coach Mathis oversees, and it’s really going to be the differentiator for what makes the Gainesville High School facility probably a top 10 facility in the state, no matter the sector—high school, college, pro, or private. This has been the first facility in this series with a comprehensive station to fuel and refuel athletes pre/post practice or workout. Coach Mathis uses it to start the conversation about how nutrition is a lifelong skill that these athletes will be learning from 14 years old and on, which is really special.

Coaches’ Tips

Coaches Williams and Mathis did a great job deciding on the pieces that would drive training at Gainesville High School for decades to come, not leaving a single rock unturned, from the flooring and space-saving decisions to the extra pieces and flair. I didn’t mention enough about branding for the place because of how much else was important—but they truly have their brand and culture installed with every new screw and bolt.

The last thoughts will be from both Coach Williams and Coach Mathis when asked about their tips for coaches looking for equipment.

“I would say establishing your goals for the renovation is the most important part,” Coach Williams replied. “Once those are set, then you can begin to reach out to the company that you would like to partner with for the project.”

“When deciding on technology equipment, it is important to consider the program that will be implemented,” Coach Mathis added. “We considered the exercise selection, grouping, transitioning, time, etc. The equipment needs to be user-friendly and easy to navigate for players and assistant coaches. We also looked for companies that provide not only reliable data but also relevant data that can be used to better program training for our athletes.”

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

If only coaches knew how much damage they were doing by lining up their athletes to run as a consequence for poor performance. I’ve played my fair share of lacrosse, and nothing tightened up a group more than when a coach gripped his whistle a little too tightly, launching into a soapbox memoir about being the most conditioned team. Echoes of Miracle on Ice would ring throughout the practice field as we were pushed to the furthest extent of human aerobic capacity.

The worst part was…I don’t think any of those hardcore sessions made a difference in a final score in my high school and college career. Most old school sport coaches end up using various workouts they’ve found online, or their metric for a good conditioning workout was how many kids ended up neck deep in a trash can.

I don’t think any of those hardcore sessions made a difference in a final score in my high school and college career, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

The best college coaches that have a well-balanced strength and conditioning program and the best high schools that host a recruiting class full of multi-sport athletes have found what truly makes a difference in the sport: speed.

I played college lacrosse for five years (COVID year for super senior) and I was never the fastest player on the field. As an attackman, you can become crafty and still be very successful; but now that I’ve begun working with a nationally respected track program, damn do I regret not taking speed training far more seriously. I, much like many other victims, thought quick feet and impressive weight room numbers would propel me to an unprecedented lacrosse season and help me achieve any goal that I set.

Now, I didn’t have a horrible career in college—my twin and I were fourth and fifth in the country in scoring before the season was shut down. But in terms of being effective on the field and what a proper sprint program could have provided for myself and my team along the way, we could’ve done a lot better.

When Skill Levels, Speed Wins

In large part, lacrosse is a game of fine skill and lesser teams often fall prey to opponents that are not only faster, but much higher in skill. This is where I think the difference in the final score lies.

Lacrosse is a game of fine skill and lesser teams often fall prey to opponents that are not only faster, but much higher in skill, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

Once you get up to a high level of college lacrosse, skill is almost always equal. It could come down to something as simple as the team with a more dominant faceoff man getting more opportunities and outlasting their opponent. So, how do we raise the level of play without overhauling the skills component and blaming the coaches for kids not being good enough at the sport?

We raise the overall speed of the program.

A big reason a team may be wrung out over the course of a game is not just because an opponent is better; but because these athletes have an innate ability to make faster decisions, read and complete a schematic representation of an oncoming play, and utilize less energy.

Techno-Tactical Model for Lacrosse

• Attackman: Dodge, get open, ride, create contact
  • Major KPI: Acceleration, COD testing, strength, problem solving
• Midfield: Highest run volume, dodge, clear the ball, defend
  • Major KPI: Short- to mid-distance sprints, aerobic capacity, strength
• Defense: Provide coverage, clear the ball, ground ball, withhold and create contact
  • Major KPI: Strength, reactive COD, short sprints
• Goalie: Fast decision-making, clear the ball
  • Major KPI: Hand-eye coordination, hand speed, general aerobic shape, explosiveness, reaction time
• Defensive midfield: Coverage, clear the ball, push transition, big ground ball emphasis
  • Major KPI: Repeat sprint, strength, COD, IQ, power
• LSM: Defend dodgers, clear the ball, push transition, big ground ball emphasis
  • Major KPI: Combo of defender and defensive mid
• Faceoff: Get out quick from low positions, use physicality, ground balls, transition
  • Major KPI: Explosive, strongest position, mental strength, short fast bouts

So, given all of this, what’s the solution?

The rapidly growing phenomenon of Tony Holler’s Feed the Cats has been introduced into lacrosse and has made a great impact on how coaches see the game. It’s essentially microdosing sprint volume in a digestible format where coaches can fit sprint training into warm-ups and solve everybody’s issues of getting faster and getting “conditioned.”

It’s essentially microdosing sprint volume in a digestible format, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

The old school coach is under the impression that running ten 300-yard gassers (totaling 3,000 yards of low intensity sprinting) or several mile runs (another way to build a submaximal aerobic base) will fully prepare their players to outrun the opponent in a given game. Sadly, the players walk away disgruntled more often than not, assuming the coach is just out to get them with this absurd amount of volume that just adds to the wear and tear of the season. It may surprise some folks to find out you can sprint a total of 100 to 400 yards with maximal rest and improve both sprint speed and repeat sprint ability, all while increasing player morale!

Practical Applications

You can split this up into a high speed 40- to 50-yard competition workout or keep it short and high rep with a 10×10 workout (which I’ll detail fully later). The issue is that kids don’t know how to pace themselves, and during these shuttle workouts, they destroy themselves on the first rep and become way too tired to reach a high enough velocity to elicit change on any of the other sprints. Or you have the savvy veteran who sandbags the first couple sprints, only to show effort on the last. Now, if you want to build up a bigger endurance base before the season starts, I recommend using drills as conditioning with little rest in between or starting off with 1,000 yards in a given day and then slowly building up throughout the season to an actual game load.

When I look at a general practice plan, I start by evaluating the daily running volume. It doesn’t have to be exact, but I’m trying to figure out if the kids are running a lot, a little, or if they’re just standing around. You can then look at your book of drills and categorize those into high running drills or low running drills.

When I look at a general practice plan, I start by evaluating the daily running volume, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

The last—and most important—piece is splitting up your week between high days and low days. On the high days, it makes sense to do more full field work and have a focus on longer sprints during warm-ups in a 10- to 20-minute block. Even providing your athletes with three to five 30- to 50-yard sprints with three to five minutes in between would be enough to elicit a speed adaptation, as long as the sprints are at true max velocity. This accomplishes the goal of sprinting the players when they’re at their freshest and building a good relationship with coaches regarding the importance of sprinting.

The low days can be focused more on small-sided games and tons of skill work. The velocities are lower during these days, so using acceleration as the basis combined with COD complexes that are close to the drills you’re doing that day should be the focus of the plan. Throughout the week, the players will be refreshed and recovered because the running volume is giving their bodies a chance to compensate and replenish over-utilized energy sources.

My main advice is to start sprinting early and often. I promise there’s benefit in terms of injury rates and speed development with proper sprint training, and kids will genuinely enjoy watching themselves get faster and having time come off the clock.

My main advice is to start sprinting early and often, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

Video 1. Reactive speed and agility games.

In the off season, I love running Derek Hanson’s 10×10 plan, building up acceleration volume and then slowly building up total volume and vertical forces as the season advances:

• Take a 10×10 box, set your kids up in a line, have them sprint the 10-yard length then walk the 10-yard width.
• Repeat this process until you get to 10 reps, then you can rest for three to four minutes in between before you repeat the drill.

Take away meaningless conditioning tests and recreate game-like environments in drills and practice, and use that as your conditioning. You can also build up the volumes and reps in those drills and, look at that, your players are working on skills as well as practicing skill development. Lastly, make running a fun game and play around with how to make the kids become competitive with it.

Make running a fun game and play around with how to make the kids become competitive with it, says @Coachbsweeney. Share on X

When my athletes are given a small-sided game like “trash can ball” or different games I come up with, they have a ton of fun and still walk away out of breath…but actually wanting to play more. Even if you run sprints, time them, and decide on a winning person/team, players light up and start to really buy into the process and the progress. In the end, they’ll further their buy-in and you will finally achieve your goal of kids not walking through the conditioning, but looking forward to it.

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

September 7, 1974 —It was a warm late-summer day in Anaheim, California, and the Angels were playing the Chicago White Sox. A young pitcher, Nolan Ryan, toed the mound. Wiping the sweat from his brow, he nodded for the fastball and began his windup. In the blink of an eye, the ball left Ryan’s hand and thwacked into the catcher’s glove—the world’s first recorded 100-mph pitch.

Thirty-six years later, in 2010, Aroldis Chapman blew the hats off of spectators when he launched a pitch clocked at 105.1 mph—the fastest recorded in the modern era. Over the past 13 years, the speed of the average pitch has gone up by more than 3 mph. Although that may not seem like much to the average person, it is a remarkable feat at the MLB level. Spectators might show up for overpriced hot dogs and concessions, but they stay for the speed—and the athletes have noticed.

This made me concoct a theory—not about hot dogs, but about the potential to add pitching speed to a ball player in the pre-season. If the game is faster than ever, how do I fill in each player’s gaps to help them keep up? Or, in other words, can I make fast athletes stronger, strong athletes faster, and once balanced, improve both instead of only focusing on one quality?

What We Did

Every pre-season in our facility, we host dozens of high school and college baseball players looking to improve their mound performance. Our program has always had fantastic results, but I wanted to quantify the most valuable KPI (key performance indicator) to any baseball player—mph. I’ve had this theory on how to get the most speed out of each athlete for years, but I finally invested the resources to test my hypothesis.

I’ve had this theory on how to get the most speed out of each baseball player’s throw for years, but I finally invested the resources to test my hypothesis, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

To do this, we hard-mounted a Pocket Radar and a tablet and regularly tracked throwing velocities. If I was correct, then focusing on the differences and deficits of each athlete would yield better results than a standard pre-season program. Within 12 weeks, most of our players were throwing 5.2 mph faster.

How did we do it?

Aside from traditional strength and power training, our program evaluated each player based on two attributes (strength-speed and velocity), categorized them, and then modified their training. Not all athletes start with the same biases and deficits, and once we understood those gaps, we were able to break some plateaus and get some results. To capture the deficits within our population, we implemented two tests and created a ratio score based on these:

1. 1. Three-step kickback medball shotput. This was how we evaluated the strength-speed of each athlete. By implementing a familiar load that was much heavier than a baseball, we could capture peak power that was more force than velocity. Athletes who were high performers in the weight room or on non/low countermovement actions excelled at this.

 

1. Three-step kickback baseball throw. This test leaned more toward the velocity side of performance and gave us a glimpse at the number everyone truly cared about. Having a low medball shotput speed did not mean that there would be an equally low throw speed. Athletes who struggled in the weight room but excelled in aspects like jumps or sprints had higher-than-expected throw velocities.

Once both metrics were collected, we created a ratio and used group means to determine the “ideal” score—which we called a speed-strength ratio (SSR). We had a group of players who’d been in our program for several years and were multi-year varsity and/or college players—we will call them the “Goon-Gang” (IFYKYK)—who all shared an SSR within 0.2 of each other, regardless of their baseball or shotput throw speeds. Some were higher performers than others, but they were all at the top of our competitive food chain. It was like the Red Sea parted, and the optimal ratio was right there in front of me.

Once I had that goal ratio in sight to get our athletes to reach, we got to work on modifying sessions to build their deficits before strengthening their strengths. Before we can dive into the fun and practical side of this approach, however, we have to get our reading glasses on and pencils out and start doing some graphing.

Once I had the goal speed-strength ratio in sight to get our athletes to reach, we got to work on modifying sessions to build their deficits before strengthening their strengths, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

Force-Velocity Curve Remodeled

The force-velocity curve is one of the first things taught to aspiring strength coaches. In most textbooks, this is a simple curve with a 1:1 relationship between force (F) and velocity (V). This chart would suggest that as force increases, velocity must decrease (and vice versa). It would be nice if the entire universe followed black-and-white rules like this, but as in many cases, the truth has more gray to it.

If you asked most baseball coaches which is harder, adding pitching velocity or improving a deadlift, they would say the former. That being said, an increase in absolute strength will sometimes lead to an increase in velocity (up to an extent). This means that getting stronger increases the length of the curve while also increasing the speed (V) at which we can move certain loads (F). This is because athletes are not uniform in nature but can use greater stretch loads from the stretch-shortening cycle to throw even harder.

If we were robots, the FV curve would make complete sense, but since our body is designed to utilize the kinetic chain, we can generate high levels of force without losing velocity (at least for a little bit). During advanced movements, the entire body acts like links in a chain, transferring the force generated by one link to the following link while amplifying it through its own additional segmented forces. By improving the efficiency of transfer or the strength of links, we can maximize performance! Humans have a very complex fascial system that we have used since the beginning of human movement to throw, jump, and run faster. Many vertebrates also share these characteristics, but it’s not a universal superpower seen in the animal kingdom.

If we were robots, the FV curve would make sense, but our body is designed to utilize the kinetic chain, so we can generate high levels of force without losing velocity (at least for a little bit. Share on X

Full-grown chimpanzees are 1.5–2 times stronger per pound of body weight than humans, but the average chimp can only throw a ball at 30 mph…which would be impressive if it was faster than the average prepubescent 11-year-old could throw. Meanwhile, the Goon-Gang all have mound velocities between 85 mph and 90+ mph. They might lose to a chimp in a deadlift competition, but that monkey can’t keep up when it comes to arm speed.

The complexity doesn’t stop there. We should also consider adding a second parabola to the Force Velocity chart demonstrating how power plays into all of this. If you can reach back in your mind to the last time you ran a physics calculation, you might remember that Power (P) = Force (F) * Velocity (V). Increasing peak power in athletes is associated with many other performance benefits. As a coach, we can target when force and velocity are at their peak, creating the sweet spot for power training. Although this will vary between athletes, most research suggests traditional strength exercises have peak power at 70%–80% 1RM, whereas their plyometric/ballistic counterparts peak at 35%–45% 1RM.

Now that we understand the complex relationship humans have with load, speed, and power and how we can uniquely use the SSC and fascial network to maximize the speed at heavier loads, we should be able to get everyone throwing 100+ mph, right?

Probably not—but at least we can try. Not everyone has the same genetic makeup, which means they come with their own predispositions, deficits, and potential. To get the most out of everyone, we have to figure out their FV curve and then go from there. Easier said than done, though, right?

Determine Whether Your Athlete Is a Rhino, Cheetah, or Tiger

There are many ways to describe an athlete’s “natural” type, and once you determine their strengths and weaknesses, you can build a program to fix their weaknesses and take advantage of their strengths. In the deep off-season, we want to address the gaps in an athlete’s portfolio, but once it’s game time, we should be peaking their strengths.

The simplest way to peak a player’s strengths without an SSR is to determine which of these three categories they fall into: endomorphs, mesomorphs, or ectomorphs, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

You don’t need an SSR to start doing this with your athletes (though it does help). There are many ways to do this, with some being more “science-heavy” than others. To start at the simplest option, you can look at a player and determine which of these three categories they fall into. Endomorphs are heavier set and more strength dominant (think shot-putter). Mesomorphs are lean but muscular, with a balanced athletic ability (think football running back). Ectomorphs are naturally skinny and do well in more dynamic situations (think basketball players).

If you’re like me, you might find this style of assessment underwhelming. The next step in the evaluation is to determine whether they are eccentrically or concentrically dominant. Another way to look at this evaluation is to say whether they move elastically or muscularly. Athletes who are more eccentric-elastic (EE) can generate more power from dynamic movements, while concentric-muscular (CM) athletes can produce large force with little assistance. Between these two groups are the muscular-elastic (ME), who have a balance of concentric abilities but still can produce large amounts of power with additional eccentric load.

There are many ways to evaluate each athlete within your group. For example, you could compare a standard countermovement vertical jump with a more dynamic approach jump. More EE athletes will see 15%–20%+ differences between the two, while more CM will have a 0–10% difference. You will also find that a CM will have better 10-yard to 40-yard ratios compared to an EE. It’s not uncommon for a CM to have a comparable or even better 0–10-yard time than an EE. It’s also not uncommon for a CM to struggle with seeing their times improve between 20–30 and 30–40, whereas an EE will have significant changes at those distances.

For our purposes, we looked at the difference between the 4-pound shotput throw and the standard plyo baseball throw. Those with a smaller difference were dubbed CM, while those with a much greater difference were EE. Our goal was to get everyone to a standard difference (working on their gaps) while still improving them in total (peaking their strengths).

If all else fails, you can put on your safari hat and decide what kind of animal your athletes are. Are they like a rhino (strong and powerful in short distances)? Are they a tiger (explosive and strong without being too heavy)? Or are they a cheetah (lean and fast with bouncy movements)?

Let’s look at our Goon-Gang for an example. Although they were all built differently (heights ranging from 5’6” to 6’4”), they moved similarly. They had creative, explosive abilities from both static and dynamic situations while also being some of the strongest per-pound-of-bodyweight athletes in the weight room. None of them moved heavy but lacked bounce like a rhino, nor did they move weakly but quickly like a cheetah. They were all tigers—strong and powerful, with a pop when needed.

How We Built Velocity Regardless of the Athlete’s “Type”

Now that we’ve made it through the “boring” logistics, we can get to practical application. For starters, we still worked on building strength (unilaterally and bilaterally), and everyone sprinted weekly and hammered rotational movement qualities as a group—after that, however, things got a bit squirrelly.

Each session included medball throws to some degree and lower/upper plyometrics as a supplement. To work on weaknesses at the beginning of the season, we created a few rules. Those who were CM used 2–4-pound medballs exclusively, and most of their throws included a greater dynamic effect: steps, wind-ups, catches, etc. Likewise, they performed fewer static plyometrics and sprinted longer distances throughout the program. Those who were EE were forced to use 6–8-pound medballs exclusively from more static positions: full kneeling, half kneeling, standing, etc. When they performed plyometrics, we focused on non/low countermovement jumps, and they trained at a higher intensity in the weight room—2.5% to 5% 1RM heavier each session.

The Goon-Gang had a more diverse training experience throughout the pre-season. They were able to use weighted throws of 2 to 8 pounds while also performing movements and throws from both static and more dynamic approaches. Not to waste a good Pocket Radar, we also recorded rep by rep to get every drop out of these guys each session.

And it worked.

Those with the greatest increases in pitch velocity resolidified my original theory—make fast athletes strong and strong athletes fast, and once balanced, improve both, says @endunamoo_sc. Share on X

Lifetime throw PRs were seen from every rhino, cheetah, and tiger in the group. Those who went from EE or CM to more ME had the greatest increases in pitch velocity, which resolidified my original theory—making fast athletes strong and strong athletes fast, and once balanced, improving both was the way to go.

The Perfect Balance

Every sport has its unique landmark of athletic success. For gym bros, it’s the answer to the question, how much can you bench? For basketball, it’s can you dunk? And even if they’ll never be able to bring it over triple digits like Nolan Ryan or Aroldis Chapman, for baseball pitchers, it’s can you top 90 mph?

Working in the private sector, I get approached by a lot of baseball parents and athletes asking how to improve their pitching velocity. I have a personal rule to stay in my own lane when it comes to my profession: I am in no way a pitching coach, so modifying their technique is out of the question. What my resume does have on it, however, are a few degrees, certifications, and studies I’ve gotten in sports performance and exercise physiology. And despite my limitations, we added an average of 5.2 mph to our group’s pitching velocities.

Establishing which animals we were working with was the key to getting those gains. The entire performance community has accepted barbell velocity-based training as a great tool for building “athletic” strength. It’s only time we get beyond the weight room and onto the field with this science.

The entire performance community has accepted barbell VBT as a great tool to build “athletic” strength. It’s only time we get beyond the weight room and onto the field with this science. Share on X

It is no longer the gold standard to track the speed of movement but rather to determine which athlete needs more speed, more strength, or the right amount of both. This can be done with a radar, as we did. This can also be done by comparing non-countermovement jumps to more dynamic jumps. And this can be done by comparing 10-yard split and 40-yard split times. The list goes on of ways to evaluate CM- and EE-dominant athletes.

Ultimately, it is up to what you have available at your disposal. And, one day, you might find yourself eating that overpriced hot dog in a ballpark somewhere in America as you watch one of your kids throwing gas on the big stage.

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