Blog

Looking back at some of the pieces I’ve written for this website, I noticed that I have a particular penchant for lengthy preambles. I’m not going to do that this time. And yes, I recognize that by mentioning my previous preambular pattern, I’ve created another preamble of sorts — BUT! — I contest it is not all that lengthy, and it is, therefore, okay. Let me begin.

Today, I will share a workout with you that I like quite a bit. Athletes I have coached also like this workout, and I think your athletes will like it, too. In fact, in the category of max-speed workouts, this might even become your favorite.

Let me first clarify what I mean when I say “max-speed workout.” For the average high school athlete, max speed is often attained somewhere between 30 and 40 meters into an all-out sprint. Even the most elite sprinters in the world can only maintain maximum speed for a couple of seconds before deceleration begins. Therefore, an all-out sprint of up to around 60 meters is what I consider “max speed.” This allows athletes to get up to their top speed and remain in that speed window for about 20 or so meters without sprinting over the metaphorical hump and into deceleration territory. That means anything over 60 meters is no longer a max-speed workout for the majority of high school athletes.

In addition, running fast requires adequate rest. Track and field coaches have long subscribed to the rule of thumb that every 10 meters of maximal effort requires one minute of rest in order for similarly high outputs to be achieved on the next rep. In other words, if you’re not giving your athletes maximal rest, then you aren’t training their max speed.

Given those constraints, a max-speed workout is a workout that includes full-intensity sprints of between 40 and 60 meters completed with adequate rest in between to perform at full intensity again. You’ll probably do four to six reps in total. I think I see a pattern emerging. Forty to 60 meters. Four to six minutes of rest. Four to six total reps. In the famous words of Owen Wilson, “Wow.”

So? Here’s the Workout

I’m not sure what to call it, but it’s 4 x 60 meters. In spikes. On the track. Preferably on a warm and sunny day.

If you’re scratching your head right now, wondering, “what’s so great about that?” just hang in there with me for a minute. If you’re scratching your head for some other reason, consider switching to Head and Shoulders (note: I have no affiliation with Head and Shoulders or with Procter and Gamble).

Like many workouts, there is so much more than the sets, reps, or distances that make this one fun and effective. So, here’s where the real flavor starts to come in.

To run this workout, here’s what you will need:

• Groups of five athletes with similar speed capabilities
• A meter stick or tape measure
• Chalk
• At least two coaches—one at the start and one at the finish
• Starting blocks
• A clipboard, pen, and paper for scorekeeping
• A prize

I like to start by hyping up the prize. Since I prefer to do this workout on a hot day, I like a big cooler full of ice, with one ice-cold Gatorade per group. Open the cooler and reveal the prizes. Let them emanate their icy aura. Hear the angels sing. Tell the athletes that whoever wins today’s workout in their group will get to sip the cool, sweet nectar. Be extra. Do the most. For even more drama, save this workout for the very end of the season when you may only have five sprinters left. A solitary Gatorade in a big cooler of ice creates a singular effect, indeed.

Take your five athletes and line them up at the starting line. We happen to have a mark for the 70-meter dash on our track. I also know that the final hurdle mark for the 300-meter hurdles is 10 meters from the finish line. My calculator tells me that 70 – 10 = 60, so we sprint from the 70-meter line to the final hurdle marks. If you don’t have a 70-meter mark, that’s okay. The distance from the 100-meter starting line to the third hurdle mark in the women’s 100-meter hurdles is 30 meters, which means… well, you get it. You don’t need to measure 60 meters. It’s already on your track.

So anyway, line ’em up. This is gonna be a race!

The first rep in the sequence is very basic. Treat this as much like a meet-day situation as possible. Call out the starting commands and have runners take their marks, set, and go. The athletes race for 60 meters, and a coach stands at the finish line to determine their finishing order, one through five. This coach holds a clipboard, which holds a sheet of paper on which the coach writes down the order in which the athletes finished. This matters a bunch because it impacts the next rep and the scoring system used to determine workout winners.

After at least six minutes have passed, we repeat this process. But runners are placed at an advantage or disadvantage, depending on where they finished on the previous rep. The runner who finished first will have the biggest disadvantage, and the one who finished last will have the biggest head start.

Because you’re a plan-ahead’er, before having the athletes come out to the track, you will have used your meter stick and chalk to mark the aforementioned advantages and disadvantages. Lane three will belong to your winning runner, but they will line up 2 meters back from the start. Lane two will be your second-place runner, 1 meter back from the start. Lane four will belong to the third-place runner, lined up at the original starting line. Lane one will belong to the fourth-place runner, lined up 1 meter ahead of the original line. And lane five will belong to your fifth-place runner, lined up 2 meters ahead of the original line.

That means that this rep (and every rep that follows) is actually somewhere between 58 and 62 meters, depending on the athlete. Here’s a visual representation of what I mean.

From this staggered position, you’ll have your group race again, tallying their finishing positions at the end of the race and once again re-seeding for the third rep. Rest, stagger, race, seed, and repeat until you’ve completed all four reps.

Determining the overall group winner comes down to who has accumulated the lowest total score over those four races. For example, for an athlete who finished first, third, second, and first, we would award scores of one, three, two, and one for a total score of seven. And as I discussed at the beginning of this rundown, the athlete with the lowest score is awarded the all-coveted Gatorade. Celebrate this and make a big deal about it. Allow playful trash talk, if that’s your thing, as long as it remains playful.

Although I have not had athletes do this, I suppose it’s possible that one of them might try to game the system, coasting to a third-place finish to get a head start in the next race based upon calculations they did in their head about the score they’ll need to be the overall winner. High schoolers, am I right? But here’s the thing: I would bet dollars to doughnuts that any attempt to do so would only end up harming, not helping, the athlete’s score.

The staggered races will finish very closely, in my experience, and while one kid is trying to coast to third, another is trying not to finish fourth. Or, let’s say one athlete really dogs one out for a fifth-place finish, banking on the head start being enough to earn a first on the next rep. That’s still six points over two reps, the equivalent of two third-place finishes. At the end of the day, the fastest kids who are the fiercest competitors on each rep will be the ones who are rewarded with sweet, sweet victory.

If there happens to be a tie score, you can pit those competitors against each other for any number of tie-breakers. You could have them line up and run one more rep with no stagger. You could put them into an isometric position and award the Gatorade to the last athlete standing. You could have them throw a medicine ball for distance. You could hold a rap battle. You could withhold the Gatorade entirely to teach them that there are winners and losers in life and that a tie is the same as a loss and then chug the Gatorade in their faces, laughing maniacally. (I’m kidding).

All in all, this workout takes between 25 and 30 minutes to run, depending on how many groups you have and how much transition time you need between groups for athletes to set their blocks. It’s quick and fun, and I’d bet my brother’s pinky toe that this workout fosters incredibly high intent, a positively competitive spirit, and an interesting twist on the typical max-speed days that you’re probably already doing. Give it a try the next time you want to spice things up at practice. And if you think of a clever name for this thing, let me know.

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

“Adapt or die.” – Billy Beane

Strength, power, and speed are essential qualities for an athlete; however, these qualities are quickly diminished if you can’t stay healthy. Fatigue can be described as a decrease in maximal force or power production in response to a contractile activity.¹ Managing fatigue over the course of a season remains essential in order to maximize athlete adaptations and minimize potential overreaching.

The field of strength and conditioning utilizes more and more sports science technology every year; with that, there has never been a better time to adopt athlete monitoring protocols. Monitoring athletes can seem intimidating at first—however, as you learn more about the available methods, I am confident you will find what works best for you. As a former collegiate baseball player, I know how quickly the game can be taken away from an athlete. Throughout this article, I will detail my athlete monitoring protocols and the benefits I’ve seen over the course of a season.

Am I saying the use of monitoring protocols will result in zero injuries?

No, that’s not how competitive sports work. However, implementing protocols with the collaboration of all aspects of player development can help bring greater resilience to your athletes and help limit acute injuries.

What Is Athlete Monitoring?

Let’s start by diving into what athlete monitoring is—in its purest form, it’s the collection and analysis of data to ensure optimal player performance. As the sports science field continues to grow, so will the methods of monitoring an athlete’s workload. With the various techniques already available, including RPE, GPS, HRV, and questionnaires, there has never been a better time to start monitoring your athletes.

For the sake of this article, I will dive into my method of fatigue management, which relies heavily on utilizing countermovement jumps to monitor fatigue. Given that this is a reliable testing protocol with easy integration into day-to-day operations, I found it fitting to introduce CMJs to my players over the course of the season. For context, my population included academy players within the Chicago Cubs organization, with athletes ranging in age from 16–20 years old. These players are hardworking, passionate young men looking for the opportunity to move up the ranks and further their careers within the organization.

Over the course of this article, I will detail my experience and the benefits I’ve seen implementing specific protocols. As discussed, RPE, GPS, HRV, and questionnaires are excellent methods to use and perhaps more affordable for those who do not have access to force plates. By no means am I here to say what works best; I’m simply highlighting my preferred method of fatigue management through CMJs.

Key Contributions

First things first: be a coach. Provide heart and motivation for your athletes. Build upon the qualities of strength, power, and speed. These qualities make up an athlete’s ability to perform at an elite level.

Second, when entering the realm of sports science technology, create a road map; do not get lost in data collection. It can be easy to overwhelm yourself and collect mass amounts of data while losing the why factor. Analyzing is equally as important as collecting when it comes to comprehending the data received. Furthermore, the physiological and psychological aspects of an athlete’s performance are critical to consider—research has shown that the adaptative response of the autonomic nervous system through training and emotional stressors is directly associated with sport performance.² To simplify: performance decreases when the athlete’s capacity is exceeded.

My past experiences have heavily shaped my approach to programming and athlete monitoring. As a former baseball player, I can relate to the thoughts many athletes have: “I don’t get tired” or “I’m not tired.” This is a typical psychological tactic many athletes and coaches preach.

In reality, fatigue is a natural occurrence, and it is meant to happen. Unfortunately, I’ve experienced the effects of fatigue. As a player, I remember creating improper mechanics with little-to-no body awareness during long bouts of practice. At the time, I thought nothing of it—just another typical day fighting through fatigue. Then my day and my career ended with a torn ACL and menisci. This dramatic event occurred while fielding a routine ground ball during baseball practice—this is a prime example of how quickly the game can be taken away from someone.

As a professional, this is why I preach athlete monitoring. We must continue to watch and monitor our athletes outside the weight room; having an understanding of their current day-to-day workload is essential before designing protocols. If you have the luxury of being in collegiate or professional sports, monitor practice and look for signs of fatigue—we know fatigue is correlated to an increased risk of an acute injury.³ 

When creating athlete monitoring protocols, ask yourself the following questions:

• What is the frequency and intensity of practices/games?
• What are the athlete’s current recovery modalities?
• Are they following a nutrition protocol?
• Are they following a hydration protocol?
• What are their sleep habits?

Doing the above will allow for a better understanding of what your athletes deal with on a daily basis.

Implementation

Culture is everything. As a strength and conditioning specialist, creating buy-in with all aspects of your organization is essential. This includes players, athletic trainers, coaches, medical staff, and even front office personnel. Communication is key—elaborate and discuss the why factors to all stakeholders in player development.

For players, tell them what you’re doing, explain the tests being done, and show them the metrics you’re looking for. To further increase their motivation, create a leaderboard: players love competition, which will only strengthen the culture within the weight room. You know you have buy-in when players constantly ask what their numbers are.

For athlete monitoring to work, like-minded conversations must occur daily to ensure optimal player readiness. Building trusting relationships leads to overall player development. Once established, we can now create a longitudinal approach to athlete monitoring.

Utilization

Countermovement jumps are highly reliable movements with the ability to monitor fatigue. For those unfamiliar, the CMJ is a test on a set of force plates to measure an athlete’s lower body power output. Force plates are mechanical sensing systems designed to measure the ground reaction forces involved in human movements.⁴ The CMJ test consists of an athlete placing their hands on their hips, squatting to a selected depth, and then jumping as high as possible. These tests are performed three times while tracking three key metrics: peak power, depth, and RSI.

Peak power refers to the highest force and velocity produced by the lower limbs during the stretch-shortening cycle. Peak power remains a critical metric that plays a massive role in sport performance.⁵ Higher peak power correlates to increased athletic performance qualities, such as power output, acceleration, and sprint performance.

Monitoring depth within the CMJ is essential. Too little or too much depth can significantly alter your results. An athlete reaching less than 30 centimeters of depth will produce more power due to the limited range of motion. On the other hand, an athlete reaching depths greater than 45 centimeters will have a decrease in peak power. Consistency is critical; aim to hit 35–40 centimeters of depth with your athletes. Let athletes be athletes. Naturally, they should switch between 35  and 40 centimeters—have a watchful eye and cue as necessary for valid results.

RSI is our final metric, demonstrating an athlete’s ability to change from an eccentric to a concentric movement quickly and effectively. In other words, how fast can an athlete generate force? With the capability to track an athlete’s explosive capabilities through the SSC, we can confidently monitor their ability to generate power throughout the season.

How to Analyze the Data

Now that we have our metrics, we can dive into how to analyze the data received. Figure 4 shows one of my former players experiencing dips in peak power.

We approach this graph by determining negative trends and implementing specific protocols. As we can see, there are numerous trends in the athlete’s profile. Understand that there will be many highs and lows throughout the season; it’s essential to ensure depth is consistent when evaluating dips to identify outliers. Determining negative trends is vital to monitoring fatigue. Peak power allows us to see the product of force; measuring and tracking this quality over time will enable us to see both power and fatigue and their correlation to a long season.

Once we are aware of potential fatigue and poor performance indicators, discussions with athletic trainers are our primary resource. If this athlete has entered the training room, determine whether they are receiving treatment for an undisclosed injury. If not, we assume they are healthy with no areas of concern. Once our collaboration with the athletic training staff is established, we can discuss it with the team’s manager and coaches. Have they seen a decline in performance? Are they noticing fatigue? These conversations often bring light to the situation and show a reasonable cause for action. At this point, we can start the athlete on monitoring protocols.

Practices and games will differ per level; however, my experience working with professional baseball typically had the following layout.

• Stretch
• Throw
• Defensive work
• Hitting
• Break
• Game
• Lift (3x/week)

With a detailed schedule, we can scale back on sport workload and high-performance workouts by detecting negative trends. My experience largely included making adjustments to early morning work—this means possible removal from hitting, throwing, defensive work, or even early work altogether. We may see our players stretch, complete a throwing program, and then complete treatment with our ATs. Their workout program is often adjusted by dialing back on volume while keeping a moderate to low intensity, depending on the athlete. Discussions around game removal remain our last resort when determining player readiness.

If protocols are implemented early, the removal from early work activities has been shown to rebound our athletes appropriately. When bucketing athletes into our monitoring protocols, it’s important to note the positive trend back up. Each athlete will recover differently; in my experience, three or more days of an increase in peak power can be an excellent example of increased player readiness.

Monitoring Is Easier Than You Think

The various methods of athlete monitoring protocols can all be practical. Your time, budget, and athletes’ availability will determine what works best for you. Discuss, integrate, and implement the protocols you deem essential. The field of strength and conditioning is meant to be experimental: review the research, ask questions, and integrate what you feel is best for your athletes.

I monitored CMJ recordings, watched practice, watched games, took the initiative to understand their sleep schedule, and of course, encouraged proper nutrition. If the technology is available, a combination of peak power, RSI, and depth is fully capable of monitoring an athlete’s fatigue. By detecting negative trends, we can rebound players appropriately to ensure player readiness. I credit my success in developing strong, powerful athletes primarily to my coaching and collection of data, which ensures each player physically develops in line with their skills on the field.

Monitoring athletes can seem intimidating; however, I promise it’s easier than you think. We know that with fatigue, there is a greater risk of injury, so detecting and monitoring fatigue remains essential. Workload management is about data collection and interpretation. I am not pulling players from games; however, the long-term benefit of modifying day-to-day operations is huge when limiting acute injuries and furthering an athlete’s career.

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. Wan J, Qin Z, Wang P, Sun Y, and Liu X. “Muscle fatigue: general understanding and treatment.” Experimental & Molecular Medicine. 2017;49(10):e384. doi:10.1038/emm.2017.194

2. Aquino M, Petrizzo J, Otto RM, and Wygand J. “The Impact of Fatigue on Performance and Biomechanical Variables—A Narrative Review with Prospective Methodology.” Biomechanics. 2022;2(4):513–524. doi:10.3390/biomechanics2040040

3. Lazarus RS. “How emotions influence performance in competitive sports.” The Sport Psychologist. 2000;14:229–252. doi: 10.1123/tsp.14.3.229

4. Beckham G, Suchomel T, and Mizuguchi S. (PDF) “Force Plate Use in Performance Monitoring and Sport Science Testing.” ResearchGate. Published 10/1/22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269631495_Force_Plate_Use_in_Performance_Monitoring_and_Sport_Science_Testing

5. Cronin J and Sleivert G. “Challenges in Understanding the Influence of Maximal Power Training on Improving Athletic Performance.” Sports Medicine. 2005;35(3):213–234. doi:10.2165/00007256-200535030-00003

About halfway into my training career, I came across the strange world (at least to me) of competitive swimming. For someone whose experience at the time revolved around the violent realms of football and wrestling, trying to understand the swimming world was literally and figuratively like learning a new language. Phrases like 59 high, 22 low, stroke pace, kick set, back half, fly day, and taper flew over my head like a street sign in a hurricane. I quickly knew I had to learn what this all meant if I was going to help these unique athletes flourish in the pool.

Within my first few seasons working with a high school team, we achieved some pretty good results individually and as a team, boasting top 5 finishes and one Illinois State Championship while breaking school records along the way. This is great, I thought. I didn’t stray too far from the nuts and bolts of conventional weight room work, so I figured, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

That is, until things did indeed break.

After the state championship year, the team hit a bit of a lull for a couple of seasons. We weren’t as fast and had a few mystery illnesses and injuries pop up at the most inopportune times. Even though the guys really enjoyed the training and the atmosphere we brought, things weren’t going the way we needed them to go to keep the needle moving forward. Yes, we lost some talent, but the pride of our program is in the Reload vs. Rebuild approach—except, we were reloading in a musket-like fashion rather than the machine gun pace we enjoyed in seasons past.

Things I initially thought to myself:

• Do they just not get it?
• What is wrong with them?
• What should I have asked myself?
• Are they recovered enough?
• Are they trained enough?
• What can I change in their training?

It was time for some humility and to learn from our coaches and swimmers. For the next several seasons (and even now), I delved deep into the murky waters of the swimming world (pun absolutely intended)!

Talking the Talk

The first order of business was learning their vernacular. I came to understand the above-mentioned references over the course of the next few seasons. Before, during, and after our lifts, I regularly asked the swimmers what happened in practice. They would have to dumb down the swim lingo for me, but l gradually learned what the aim of their practice sets meant. Most every set was based off a pace, interval, and density (volume done in a certain time).

These practice elements were not as foreign as previously thought, as I could now relate weight room work to help drive training qualities in certain training phases with respect to time and exercise pace. There was a need for certain exercises to be explosive, powerful, rhythmic, or a combination of these and sustain the ability to repeat these outputs. Applying their vernacular (blocks, turns, stroke pace) to their weight room sets cemented the intent of our lifts.

Second, regular conversations with the swimmers and coaching staff painted a better picture of what practice looked like from both perspectives. I learned to plan the weight room movements, volumes, and intensities accordingly to consolidate stressors and appease the coaches.

The way I see it, even though the architects can have the best-laid plans, the building will turn out to be severely flawed if those plans don’t make practical sense to the builders. For example, I found out the hard way that deadlifts or cleans after “fly day” (butterfly specialty sets) make it a bad day; there is no sense in beating the dead horse of the hinge pattern when the spine has been in repeat hyperextension for an entire practice. We simply switched this to our main leg day and vertical pull session to restore length.

I also decided to cut out barbell work during these seasons on the third workout. A few reasons for this:

• This day was usually after our second lift day and the day of a morning practice—our recovery wasn’t optimal, to say the least.
• This third day was also less than two days before a weekend invite—the team just wasn’t there mentally to grind through another lift.

I ended up going the way of body weight, medicine ball, and band work in Tabata fashion to keep the intensity and pace high in brief bouts: a 24-minute workout in total, followed by recovery work. If anything, this kept the overall volume at the minimum, given that two of the three lift sessions are their third session of the day. Yup, we lift after two swim practices each week. This aspect of their season still amazes me, as to this day, I do not know any other high school sport that practices twice a day DURING the season.

After looking at things from the bigger picture, understanding training phases in a short season (three months) was relatively simple. Given the post-season structure, our program follows a binary model of training phases (periodization, if you will), explained simply as, “It’s a grind until the taper.” Culturally masochistic? Maybe. But an invaluable insight into the mentality of coaches and athletes—the task becomes appeasing the coaches’ wishes without killing these kids.

Lastly, understanding time for a swimmer is like knowing where their Holy Grail is. Time is of the essence! Every bit of a practice set is written off of timed interval models in an attempt to tolerate outputs for distance splits and chop as much time during the qualifying meets as possible. If there was one significant shift in my approach to training swimmers, it was using time as a factor for work, rest, and when and how to train certain biomotor qualities. Using time and intervals resonates with swimmers because it is a language they already speak…so why not speak it in the weight room?

Rebranding the Taper

As seasons passed, my deeper understanding of time helped refine our training process for both the grind phase and the taper phase. Within the grind and taper model, we must understand that what goes up must come down—you cannot grind in perpetuity. For us, the grind phase is simple: two broken circuits revolving around a core lift, explosive drill, and exercises for the trunk and shoulder dexterity are consistent orders of the day. We work through about nine weeks of this, gradually reducing the rest interval but keeping the volume the same, seeking density of work over this period.

The taper is where things get a little interesting. For strength coaches who have worked with swimmers, we all know the nuanced changes in mindset this time of the season brings. For most, it’s like the last week of school before the summer break (read: they’ve officially checked out and want nothing to do with early mornings, a pool, or a weight room), which is not exactly ideal if we’re trying to stay sharp.

For others, it’s like a kid during Christmastime: they hope they were “good enough” all year long and will receive all the presents they worked for on the big day. The operative word is hope. As soon as I hear a swimmer say hope, it worries me a bit, as I am fully aware of the pending anxiety that results from that paradigm, which is amplified if hands are idle. The last thing these “worriers” need is to empty their time and gain dead space where doubt can creep in and wreak havoc on their confidence. The psychology of the taper is as significant as the physiology.

In the pool, practice volume is reduced as morning practices are eliminated, quality sets replace the volume, and the practice of starts and timing relay exchanges ensures the pertinent parts of each race are in good working form. The synergistic effect of normal sleep patterns, stress reduction (to the energy systems), and precise practice drives a restorative effect. My question was: How can we replicate this approach in the weight room to amplify the effects of the taper and nullify the potential psychological drawbacks?

The answer? We don’t taper; we prime!

In the mundane world of swimming, where staring at the black line several hours of the day creates stir-crazy athletes, finding purpose in the most arbitrary ways is sometimes what it takes to keep the “squirrels” at bay. For us, it has meant redefining Taper Time into Prime Time!

The definition of priming is the act of making something ready: preparation in advance of some act, purpose, or performance. I feel this definition commands positive pro-action, where the finishing touch is in the hands of the athlete.

Physiologically, we do strip the program down, but we do not take away what got us there. In congruence with the theme of this training period, we eliminate the “grind” from our core lift repertoire, opting for higher-speed counterparts like high pulls and loaded jumps for 3–5 reps (to keep our starts and walls sharp). We use oscillatory work and med ball throws for the upper and lower body that replicate split times for each swimmer.¹ The movements here are specific in terms of duration and output but can also mimic the action and rhythm of the strokes, given that you have the tools at hand.

The benefits of this are twofold, as the combination of lighter loads and higher speeds (for time) allow the CNS to recover and recalibrate to familiarize the athlete with event outputs as much as possible. The combination here is simple; we do the following:

• One upper body med ball throw or extensive plyo for time, 15–40 seconds.
• One horizontal or vertical jump exercise for starts and walls.
• An oscillatory exercise for the kick.²

Beginning three weeks from the championship meet, we have two training blocks per day with one exercise for upper, lower, and explosive, ramping down the sets from three, two, and one each week until the meet.

Psychologically, priming works much the same. “Priming is a technique used in cognitive psychology that conditions responses through exposure to specific stimuli. It works with our unconscious responses to change our thought patterns and reactions by tapping into the way our brains process, store, and recall information. Priming is known to improve cognitive and behavioral response times.”³

This sounds like the exact thing we are trying to do as we enter championship performances. Stripping the work to the necessities in such a way that it resonates with the athlete (movements for time) is the key to merging the physical with the mental while staving off the doubt monsters lurking in the shadows of idle times.

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 and Further Reading

1. Triphasic Training: A Systematic Approach to Elite Speed & Explosive Strength Performance. Dietz & Peterson. Dietz Sports Enterprise, 2012. p. 310–313.

“Because the loading of the movement is light, the high power stimulus must come from maintaining as high velocity (eccentrically and concentrically) throughout the entire duration of the set. Actively pushing the bar against gravity and intentionally pulling the bar during the eccentric.” ~Pulling with gravity increases the virtual force during the amortization phase.~

“Sets are done for time, loads are kept static, progress is measured by performing more work within the allotted time.”

Table 6.1 Under 55% loading parameters

Swim 50-200-25s,17s,32s

Swim >200-32s,25s,40s

End Swim- 40s,32s,47s

2. Triphasic Peaking Methods 1, 2, and 3 for advanced results for all levels of athletes.
Triphasic Peaking Method 1.
Peaking Method 2.
Peaking Method 3.

3. What Is Priming Psychology And What Is It Used For?

Updated September 30, 2022, by Betterhelp.com Editorial Team

“Priming is a technique used in cognitive psychology that conditions responses through exposure to specific stimuli. It works with our unconscious responses to change our thought patterns and reactions by tapping into the way our brains process, store, and recall information. Priming is known to improve cognitive and behavioral response times.”

“Priming is widely used by psychologists as therapy to treat patients with stress, anxiety and depression. Positive priming creates positive responses and emotions in patients and can significantly help to manage mood disorders. However, priming is also used in various other aspects of life apart from mental health care.”

Athlete readiness is a popular topic: can we use tests to collect data to gain insight into an athlete’s physical state, ultimately helping make decisions and modifications (if any) about the training later that day? The thought is that these modifications will help maximize what the athlete is truly ready to handle that day, whether it be doing more, doing less, or simply providing reassurance to stay the course.

These optimized days then add up over the course of a training microcycle, mesocycle, and macrocycle to produce even better results. But what test is simple, repeatable, and engaging for athletes to perform and trackable consistently over time? The vertical jump.

Here’s the logical framework connecting sprint readiness to jump readiness:

1. Ninety-five percent of an athlete’s best sprint is fast enough to cause speed gains.
2. How often do athletes hit 95%, and are they ready for a high-intensity speed training session? Around 13% of the time, they are UNDER 95%.
3. What is a similar threshold for vertical jumping?

Coming from famous speed coach Charlie Francis and endorsed by many others, we know that 95% of an athlete’s best sprint time or faster is a high enough intensity to cause speed gains.

Anecdotally, 95% is a good threshold that lines up with an athlete’s readiness to train that day—the data I’ve collected shows that my athletes are only under that number around 13% of the time. This means, on average, in almost nine of every ten speed sessions, my athletes are ready to perform high-intensity speed training. But how does 95% line up for vertical jumping? Should that number be higher or lower? How often are athletes below it?

Athletes and Data Collection

From the data I collected at TCBoost Sports Performance, I used measurements from 42 athletes (33 males and nine females; 37 high school athletes and five college athletes). The criteria to be included in the vertical jump analysis was at least 10 vertical jumps. The criteria to be included in the combination jump and sprint analysis was at least 10 sprint times, and of those 10 times having at least five days of both a vertical jump and a sprint time (fly 10 or 5–15 acceleration). Thirty-four athletes had at least five days of both a vertical jump and fly 10, 30 athletes had at least five days of both a vertical jump and 5–15, and six athletes had at least five days that included a vertical jump, fly 10, and 5–15.

In total, from the 42 athletes, there were 868 daily vertical jumps used for analysis. Of those jumps, 826 were assigned a percentage of that athlete’s best (as everyone’s first daily jump can’t be compared to their best).

Of the 34 athletes who had at least five fly 10 times on the same day as a vertical jump, 519 fly 10s were used for analysis. Four-hundred eighty-five of those sprints were assigned a percentage of that athlete’s best. Of the 30 athletes who had at least five 5–15 times on the same day as a vertical jump, 483 5–15s were used for analysis. Four-hundred fifty-three of those sprints were assigned a percentage of that athlete’s best.

Jump and Sprint Analysis

Since the premise of this article and analysis is what we know about Charlie Francis’s 95% threshold and my previous data, we need to compare the sprints and jumps. The first thing to note is the larger variability between daily jumps and sprints. Vertical jumps were much more inconsistent, with the average of an athlete’s best to worst jump varying by 16.6%, while the fly 10s and 5–15s only varied by 9.0% and 7.1%, respectively.

A few speculations as to why this could be:

• Jumps were performed at the end of the warm-up, so the athlete might not have been truly warmed up.
• There is a technical component to landing with a flat foot as opposed to toes first that affects the reading on a jump mat.
• “Newbie gains” might be easier to attain in jumping than in sprinting.

Regardless of the plausible explanations, this means there might need to be more flexibility or a larger range when determining a sufficient range for daily vertical jumps.

Next, the average daily percentage for vertical jumps (96.8%) was lower than that of sprinting (97.9% for both fly 10 and 5–15). This could be due to the factors mentioned above and just overall greater variability in vertical jumps.

Now that we know jumping is more variable and measures at a relatively lower percentage of an athlete’s best on a daily basis, how does the 95% threshold look as a gauge of readiness? From previous data, athletes sprint under 95% of their best around 13% of the time. However, it is important to note that middle school athletes were discussed in that article, and this data set was for high school and college athletes.

Clearly, 95% for daily vertical jumps is too high of a percentage, as athletes were under that almost 30% of the time. For a threshold that yields the athletes being under it closer to 10% of the time for both sprint tests, as shown below, it appears 92.5% is a suitable mark for vertical jumps. Athletes only jumped under 92.5% of their best 11.7% of the time.

Lastly, it is important to determine whether these measures were related. Can we make decisions solely based on jump data if it’s very related to and predictive of sprint performance? Believe it or not, when athletes had both a vertical jump and sprint time on the same day with a calculated percentage of their best, they were not correlated. There was no correlation between the daily jump percentage and daily fly 10 percentage (0.190), daily jump percentage and daily 5–15 percentage (0.144), or daily fly 10 percentage and daily 5–15 percentage (0.354).

This makes sense, as although they are both explosive athletic movements, they are different skills and movement patterns. Since sprinting and becoming faster is the foundation of speed and power training, daily sprint percentage will be the primary indicator of an athlete’s readiness and consequent decision-making (if any). However, because jumps and sprints are not correlated, jump readiness can be used as a quick snapshot to create context and open up a conversation with an athlete about how they’re feeling.

Limitations

Here is my commentary on why vertical jumps may be more variable than sprints, why vertical jumps were not correlated to sprint times, and the overall limitations of this data:

Technology. This data spans two different jump mats and two different timing laser systems. The MyJump Just Jump Mat was used from October 2020 to February 2022, and the Swift EZE Jump Mat was used from February 2022 to November 2022. VALD SmartSpeed lasers were used for most of this data collection, with Swift lasers being mixed in intermittently.

• Because jump mats measure jump height by flight time, athletes can improve their scores simply by learning how to perform the jump more proficiently (with the whole foot touching the ground on the landing, as opposed to landing on the toes first). This could be reflected as “newbie gains,” but really, it is learning how NOT to do the test incorrectly.

Focus. Part of the reason vertical jumps are in the discussion for a plausible daily readiness measure is the simplicity of the test. Consequently, it may be easier for athletes to complete a vertical jump haphazardly when compared to a timed sprint.

Placement in the workout. An overwhelming majority of this jump data was collected at the end of the warm-up before the main workout of the day. Consequently, the athletes might not have been completely warmed up by the time the jumps were measured. On the flip side, athletes were much more likely to have truly been ready to sprint at 100% after a warm-up, jumping, and sprint drills. However, to gather the most reliable data, you should always collect jumps at the same place within the workout. Each option of jump placement will have its pros and cons; just be sure to keep it consistent when tracking over time.

Data in database. There could be a gap in the data based on whether it was entered into the database or not. Between myself and the four other coaches at my current facility, I cannot assume every sprint and jump was entered for every athlete over this two-year span. The athletes and groups that I coach had more data entered. For example, if I coached a group of athletes on Mondays when we mainly do 5–15s, and another coach had that same group on Wednesdays when we mostly do fly 10s, there could be a gap in the fly 10 data.

Training goals. Although we train our groups concurrently, private athletes have different and specific training goals. Data analysis included both group and private athletes. For example, sprint percentages over time could look much different when comparing a group of athletes who focus on sprint development to a private volleyball player who mainly focuses on jump development.

Population. This data did not include middle school athletes. Middle school athletes are much more inconsistent and jump much lower, which leads to huge relative variations in daily jumps. The 21 middle school athletes who met the vertical jump criteria varied by 18.8% ± 8.3%, which is much more variable than the high school/college athletes’ 16.6% ± 4.6%. However, this was also reflected in the decreased time under 95% for the sprint times of 10.9% and 7.7% compared to the previous article’s 13.0%.

Looking at 92.5% for Vertical Jumps

A daily vertical jump measure of readiness makes sense in most populations due to the test’s simplicity, feasibility, and practicality. With what we know about daily sprint times and comparing it to an athlete’s previous best relative to the Charlie Francis 95% threshold, 92.5% for vertical jumps may be a more realistic threshold. This is NOT to say that jumping 92.5% is a good jumping stimulus and will consequently lead to jumping improvement (which is the foundation of the 95% sprint threshold). This IS to say that if we use 95% for sprinting as an insight into how the athlete is feeling that day and their readiness to do high-intensity training for sprinting and power development, then 92.5% is similar for jumping.

This lower threshold makes sense, as there is a greater percentage of variation for vertical jumps on a daily basis when compared to sprinting. However, we also know that jump and sprint percentages are not related and, consequently, cannot be used in place of one another. Each readiness test will serve different purposes for you as a professional. Because sprints are more physically demanding to perform, more consistent of a measure, and the most specific test, let them be the main indicator of readiness and consequent decision-making.

The vertical jump is a simple exercise that can be used to start the conversation about daily readiness. This is not to say that as soon as the athlete jumps under 92.5%, you should abandon the plan for that day; it just means to investigate further and come to a consensus plan to help maximize the training that day for the athlete.

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

Loaded carries are a low entry, high reward exercise that can develop strength in the trunk, grip, and upper body, along with being a great means to develop conditioning without punishing the joints.

When programming carries for the tactical population, they hold an even greater importance. Programming for athletes is far easier in comparison to those in the tactical field—athletes have specific seasons of play, and for the most part, you have a solid idea of what their sport requires.

For tactical athletes, every day is gameday, and it is impossible to program around their schedule and meet their specific required work tasks. Whether it be carrying ladders, dragging people, or even wrestling down a perpetrator, they have to be prepared for everything and anything. Yes, some things are fairly common or routine enough to be considered “day to day,” but you cannot replicate the additional potential stressors or dangers that are associated with their duties.

Using carries as an exercise helps develop a strong base of general physical preparation (gpp), and even though many tactical athletes will carry things in the field—odd objects, people, their loads, etc.—I still focus and train carries as a gpp-based exercise, not overcomplicating the task.

My job is to aid tactical athletes in physical preparation to better handle the stressors of their jobs, not necessarily to replicate the field. If it looks similar to what may occur in the field and that helps initiate some buy in, then that is just a positive coincidence. Additionally, many agencies have their own work performance tests or physical abilities test, which will include specific tasks and carries.

How to Implement Carries

Carries are a versatile exercise that can be performed with several different pieces of training equipment, through various methods, and with different training adaptations in mind.

When progressing carries, there are four variables to consider:

• Load
• Distance
• Time
• Speed

Manipulating these four variables can help amplify a training session and can be used to develop and challenge athletes over time. Carries can be utilized in the warm-up, as the primary training exercise of the day, or as a conditioning option.

Warm-ups with carries are great to emphasize trunk and shoulder stability. Single arm carry options such as suitcase carries, kettlebell bottoms up carries, and others can create high amounts of muscular activation with little load required.

Selecting a carry exercise as the primary exercise of the session is a beneficial option when working with the tactical population. Exercises such as heavy farmers’ carries or front-loaded options are brutal and will force total body tension. These movements can also be progressed easily by increasing the load over time, the distance covered, or even the speed of performance.

Programming carries as a means of conditioning is great for the tactical athlete. Maintaining the ability to carry or move loads can be paramount in the field. Mixing carries into conditioning protocols doesn’t have to be complicated either. Modify protocols such as AMRAPs or EMOMs by replacing exercises with carrying-based movements. A second option is to simply perform the carries for a set time, one minute plus for example. Simple, yet tough.

Carry Exercises

D Ball / Odd Objects

The D Ball or any odd object implantation are great tools to use for carries. Each offer their own unique difficulties when performing exercises and are more chaotic than the standard dumbbell or kettlebells. Some odd objects, for example, would be sandbags, kegs, and atlas stones.

Exercises that can be performed with these include:

Shoulder Carry

Carrying the implement on just one side of the body will force a need for the opposite side to brace and remain solid. This carry will typically allow the most weight to be used.

Offset Carry

Adding to the shoulder carry, you will carry an implement by the side in suitcase position. Later in the article, we’ll go into more depth on the offset carries and their benefits when using carries in a training program.

Bear Hug

Squeezing the implement tight to the body works to develop strength in the upper back, mid-section, and the grip. To successfully perform the movement, total body tension will be required.

Kettlebell / Dumbbells

Outside of the odd object implementation, using kettlebells or dumbbells can be more than enough to train multiple carry options.

Some exercises that can be performed with these include:

Front Rack Carry

The front rack carry can be performed with one or two kettlebells and requires proper posture throughout the movement. This carry is great to strengthen the entire back, shoulders, and trunk.

Overhead Carry

Similar to the front rack position, overhead carries can be performed with one or two implements and puts even more stress across the trunk, since the load is farther away from your center of mass, and are also great for shoulder health and stability.

Offset Carries

Offset carries refer to loading just one side of the body differently from the other. This can be done by switching up the carrying position on one side of the body or just grabbing a heavier kettlebell in one hand in comparison to the other. Offset carries are great to add some variety and challenge in your programming.

Additional Movements

Once carries have been established in a program there are additional obstacles or series that can be utilized in training. Using carries in multidirectional movements (such as forward and backward shuttles, figure 8’s, or in conjunction with sled training) can all be viable answers.

Shuttles

Shuttles can be utilized to make small spaces feel much larger as well as offer a different proprioceptive perception, as walking backwards with a load can surprisingly be much more difficult than expected.

An example shuttle could be 20-10-5 yards: walk forward and back 20 yards, then 10 yards, and finish with a quick 5 yards forward and back. Different carry positions can be mixed in throughout the shuttles. There are really no limitations on what you may see fit for your population.

Figure 8’s

From the archives of Joe Defranco’s special strength exercises. Figure 8 carries change up the direction by walking in a looping figure 8. Incorporating tight turns and quick redirections require more control and bracing throughout the carry.

Carry and Drags

Using carries with sled movements is another underutilized way to challenge conditioning and broaden the base of physical preparation for tactical athletes. Whether it be forward, backward, or cross over drags, adding a single or double arm carry will change the exercise altogether.

With beginners, I would recommend dragging the sled with the anchor around the waist before using a single strap as shown in the video.

Wrap-Up

Carries are one of the best bang-for-your-buck exercises that can be used for tactical practitioners. Compared to other exercises, they require little skill acquisition and can be used several different ways in a training program.

Using the information throughout this article and exercise list can provide additional ways to utilize carries with tactical athletes. Progressing the exercises in a training program is key and will continue to keep them fresh and beneficial.

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

Push-ups are an OG. A face card in the deck of (useful) exercises. In fact, they may be the only movement left unscathed by the myopic mission of boxing up exercises as “right” or “wrong,” better or worse.

Push-ups are old school, cool, beneficial, hard, and perhaps more technical than many people realize. They require dynamic stability and global coordination literally from head to toe, and you’re relying on a relatively small joint (the elbow) to bend and lower the body to the floor and back up again. And while they may be fillers—or “vanilla” for some populations—belonging to the body weight category doesn’t relegate them to the “dummy-proof” column or provide a simple check for “upper body push” if athletes can’t perform them correctly.

Although the title and content of this article focus on push-up development specifically for females, there are parts applicable to everyone. Being male does not provide an automatic proficiency pass for push-ups or exclude athletes from thorough coaching, just as being female does not call for belittling or misogynistic modifications. Every athlete deserves thorough and attentive training and coaching—but programming the same blanket training for males and females overlooks major developmental differences and does both a disservice.

To provide the best possible training, one should be knowledgeable and respectful of differences regarding ability and long-term progress. This piece is not intended to examine comparisons between males and females but, rather, to discuss some reasons why training should vary and how to approach those differences.

My purpose is to:

1. Provoke more thought and attention when it comes to prescribing push-ups for all athletes.
2. Discuss two critical developmental changes that affect the physical performance of females during and after puberty and how these changes can impact upper body strength development.
3. Provide insights and progressions that have worked for my athletes.

Developmental Considerations

Puberty is a complex, dynamic process, to say the least. There are significant hormonal, anthropometrical, and neuromuscular changes (among others) that can impact physical performance. For those in a position to govern physical activity or prescribe training to adolescents, it’s vital to understand these comprehensive changes. Typically, girls begin puberty and experience changes earlier than boys, ranging in age from 9–11 years old^1–3, but the timing and rate of puberty can and does vary widely amongst individuals.

Although numerous changes occur during the adolescent period, there are two in conjunction that, in my opinion, are the most significant when it comes to the development of relative upper body strength and primarily impact adolescent athletes.

1. Peak Height Velocity

In both females and males, there is a time of peak height velocity (PHV)—also called the adolescent growth spurt—which coincides with the onset of puberty.³ During PHV, the long bones of the body, including the femur and tibia, undergo rapid vertical growth.^1,4 Accompanying the increase in height is an increase in the center of mass (COM), making control of the trunk more challenging.⁴

As mentioned, push-ups require a coordinated effort by nearly every joint in the body; there isn’t a joint from the hips upward that isn’t involved, with the pelvis and spine being most heavily involved in providing support and structure for the entirety of the trunk. This will be covered in more detail to follow, but it is an essential pubertal change to be aware of for more reasons than just push-ups.

2. Strength and Neuromuscular Control

Following the growth spurt (PHV), it has been documented that girls do not experience what’s referred to in the literature as a neuromuscular spurt. That is to say that in conjunction with an increase in height, center of mass, and body mass, there is not an equal response in neuromuscular strength and coordination to match or pace the other variables of growth.^5,6

“In lay terms, growth results in larger machines in both sexes, but as male subjects mature, they adapt with disproportionately more muscle “horsepower” to match the control demands of their larger machine. Female subjects do not show similar adaptations.”⁶

This difference is most notable with upper body development: “The disproportionate strength increase is most apparent during male adolescence, and is greater in the upper extremities than in the trunk or lower extremities.”⁷

This is not to say that strength does not increase—it has been documented that strength does increase linearly in girls. However, there is not a marked or observed time of peak acceleration.²

Although we can observe sexual dimorphism at this phase of development, it’s essential to adopt the mindset that these are not reasons why girls cannot do push-ups, but rather why prescribing upper body strength work should be distinctly different in certain regards and why painting your girls and boys with the same brush is not providing each with the training they need.

Positions

Before we can teach athletes how to navigate a more global pattern like push-ups, it’s important to address specific positional awareness of their pelvis, head, and scapulae. This part gets a bit nitty-gritty, but it creates a foundational footprint for further training. It is blatantly low fruit that seems to be largely forgotten in the early stages of athletic development.

For lack of creativity, I use the term “bony structures” because it simply involves teaching how to move parts of the axial and appendicular skeleton. Without teaching this prior to further push-up work (or other lifts), we end up with a roomful of athletes stuck in extension, hanging on their structures.

For a visual, I ask four students to stand in a square pattern and have the class imagine the four standing are holding a corner of a huge blanket. Then I ask what would happen if I poured 10 gallons of water in the middle. The answer, of course, is that the center would sink to the bottom, if not pull the corners out of the participants’ hands.

This is a true walk-before-you-crawl approach because even before the most basic of movements, like planks, the ability to manipulate these areas into their most advantageous positions is an essential piece of development. I partly attribute the need for work in these areas to PHV and changes in COM. However, it is plausible to include lifestyle factors as well as early specialization as reasons for this unawareness.

1. Posterior Pelvic Tilt or Anti-Extension: We’ve all witnessed athletes who attempt to perform a plank or push-up, but their belly button sags to the floor due to lumbar hyperextension. This puts stress on the individual facet joints but can also be unhealthy for the shoulders, as we can often observe the scapulae dive forward in accompaniment. This is corrected by teaching posterior pelvic tilt or anti-extension of the lumbar spine. We can correct it by teaching anti-extension exercises like dead bugs.

In my experience, the easiest and most effective way to introduce this is in a supine position and then transition to a prone position, as it’s specific to push-ups and other prone exercises, like fallouts or ab wheel rollouts.

2. Cervical Retraction: Typically, we can also observe pronounced cervical extension, where the head is in front of the body or the eyes are looking upward. Correcting this involves teaching how to retract and protract the neck. I’ve found a seated position to be the best place to start, then prone. In a prone position, we begin to increase strength, as it provides gravitational resistance. Cervical retraction, like the posterior pelvic tilt, is a small but binding piece of a bigger movement puzzle. Forgoing the instruction of either leaves other movements, like RDLs, lacking.

3. Scapular Protraction and Retraction: Based on my experience, there will always be athletes who don’t know how to move their scapulae around their rib cage. This is important for successful pushing and pulling movements and helps prevent unwanted elevation or anterior tipping in movements like push-ups. Again, I teach this in a general way, first in a seated position, instructing them to feel their shoulder blade, then in a prone position. Teaching this early paves the way for correct rowing, vertical pulling, and pushing techniques.

Progressions

Push-up execution is a marathon process, requiring diligent and thorough coaching. The most successful approach I’ve found is establishing a strong isometric base, then progressing to the eccentric and concentric simultaneously, but in different ways.

This is also where I’ve observed the most significant difference between genders. Girls will need more time developing concentric pushing strength before they’re able to do full push-ups, whereas, with boys, I’ve found the positional work to be most needed. The most important thing is to meet your girls where they are rather than rushing them to a specific endpoint. Be creative and find ways to help them be successful.

Weight rooms are obviously full of weights, and they can be utilized in numerous ways, their primary design aside. For instance (noted in my progressions chart below), before we get into more traditional bench variations, I have my girls use bumper plates to train their pushing strength. I think in many cases, depending on the age group, this is a superior place to begin—for us, it’s also out of necessity due to a lack of appropriate-weight dumbbells.

Recently, Alan Bishop tweeted some great information about the strength deficit between maximal eccentric and concentric capacity. Essentially, the ratio of eccentric strength to concentric will always be greater. However, by emphasizing the eccentric, we can further widen the “gap,” theoretically bringing up concentric capacity. And to steal another point from Alan, I have no double-blind studies to back this up when it comes to submaximal or relative strength application, only anecdotal experience and 46% of all my female athletes demonstrating the ability to perform technically sound push-ups at the close of the 2021–2022 school year.

To return to the eccentric ratio, once we establish positions, we progress to the eccentric, or lowering part, of the push-up, while maintaining those bony positions. Although the concentric, or “up” phase, may be lacking for some, the isometric and eccentric phases are at work here and, as we know, are a strong stimulus for strength. This is also important to build the pattern-specific neuromuscular coordination that is so vital at this time.

Isometric: With my middle school athletes and incoming ninth graders, we spend a lot of time developing positional strength using planks. As with other movements, good positions should be established first. With push-ups, it begins with planks. Yes, they’re boring, but not entirely useless. And while there are better ways to train bracing, planks are a powerful precursor to push-ups. They’re an isometric classroom when we consider the number of structures that can be manipulated and strengthened: posterior pelvic tilt, cervical retraction, end range shoulder protraction.

It’s essential to establish positional awareness in this static position because if they struggle with a plank, they will fail in a more dynamic progression. Once they get to high school, I begin progressing their anti-extension movements, as seen in the chart.

Note: I think external load can be successfully used with middle school athletes, depending on your circumstances. I have very large groups, with both limited equipment and space, so we maximize body weight, tempo, and positions, which has worked well.

Eccentric: Once they can demonstrate a plank, keeping their lumbar and cervical spine out of extension, in 20-second intervals, I add the eccentric portion. However, it’s common for them to default back to extension patterns. For this reason, I incorporate hands-elevated lowers, but band-assisted lowers are preferred, as they allow for a full range of motion. And depending on the group, I’ll utilize a two- to three-week eccentric bench phase to continue accentuating the strength deficit.

Concentric: I think progressions can be taken to the extreme, and at some point, the athlete just needs to get stronger. However, if we’re “slow cooking,” putting a barbell in the hands of a novice with no requisite skill patterning is contradictory and short-sighted. Progressions provide checks for proficiency, safety, and confidence. They bridge one movement to the next and set athletes up for success.

With these progressions, I often use more than one in conjunction with another. For instance, the bench press may serve as our primary upper lift, but I’ll include push-ups or band-assisted push-ups as accessory work within the same lift. Coaches should note that once an athlete can perform a full push-up, it is important to prescribe them in lower volumes, so they can complete quality reps and continue to get stronger. Don’t crush their confidence to satisfy your ego-driven goals.

Push to Close

If our goal is to build strength and develop skills for the long term, we need to step back and take a part(s)-before-the-whole approach, even with bodyweight movements. For females, push-ups are more of a reflection of strength than a foundational strength builder. And with novices, I don’t think prescribing them is realistic or feasible until the other aspects of strength and control are established.

This can be a rewarding and meaningful process for girls, and trust me, they want to be able to do push-ups and demonstrate their upper body strength. Help them reach these goals in a way that challenges them but also empowers them to keep pushing—no pun intended (well, maybe).

We must meet our athletes where they are, and failing to observe and serve their present state is an oversight. Coach the needs of the athlete in front of you and set them up for success. This may entail differences in programming and progressing, and that’s okay; it’s to be expected. Rather than dismiss the differences in our athletes or blanket them with the same training, we need to embrace and understand their differences to help them succeed.

*Author’s Note: This article is dedicated to Dr. Shelley Long, who’s taught me more about strength than any weight room ever could.

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. Soliman A, De Sanctis V, Elalaily R, and Bedair S. “Advances in Pubertal Growth and Factors Influencing It: Can We Increase Pubertal Growth?” Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. Nov 2014;18(Suppl 1):S53–S62.

2. Beunen G and Malina RM. “Growth and Physical Performance Relative to the Timing of the Adolescent Spurt.” Exercise and Sports Sciences Reviews. Jan. 1988;16(1):503–540.

3. Rogol AD, Clark PA, and Roemmich JN. “Growth and Pubertal Development in Children and Adolescents: Effects of Diet and Physical Activity.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Aug. 2000;72(2 Suppl):521S–528S.

4. Myer GD, Chu DA, Jensen EB, and Hewett TE. “Trunk and Hip Control Neuromuscular Training for the Prevention of Knee Joint Injury.” Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine. July 2008;27(3):425–ix.

5. Hewett TE, Myer GD, and Ford KR. “Decrease in Neuromuscular Control About the Knee With Maturation in Female Athletes.” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. Aug. 2004;86(8):1601–1608.

6. Hewett TE and Myer GD. “The Mechanistic Connection Between the Trunk, Knee, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury.” Exercise and Sports Sciences Reviews. Oct. 2011;39(4):161–166.

7. Beunen G and Malina R. “Growth and Biologic Maturation: Relevance to Athletic Performance.” In The Young Athlete. April 2008.

Injuries are an unfortunate part of sports and can be physically and emotionally taxing on an athlete. As such, optimizing one’s rehabilitative process for a full return to sport is of paramount importance for athletes and clinicians alike.

While appropriate physical training can reduce the risks associated with sustaining musculoskeletal injuries, they can never be entirely eliminated. Because of this, there will always be a need for recovery interventions that can augment and accelerate the athlete’s recovery back to pre-injury status (and hopefully beyond this level).

Of the multitude of therapeutic modalities and strengthening interventions that can be utilized for rehabilitating musculoskeletal injuries, one exciting intervention—blood flow restriction therapy (BFR)—has been gaining popularity over recent years, particularly for the lower extremities. The lower extremity is reported to be the most frequently injured area of the body, with the hamstrings and the rectus femoris (a quadriceps muscle) being two of the most commonly injured muscles of the lower extremity.^1–3

But the popularity of an intervention doesn’t necessarily guarantee its effectiveness. So, if this therapeutic intervention is as effective as many claim it to be, a look at the scientific literature should back it up. And—spoiler alert—it does.

However, simply having a general awareness of an intervention’s effectiveness doesn’t mean much if you don’t understand the nature of when, how, and why it can be utilized.

So, let’s break this all down and let science lead the way!

Challenges with Lower Extremity Injuries

Regaining muscle strength and mass following injury is necessary for a successful return to sport. When injured, the longer the athlete goes without physically loading and stimulating the affected muscles (in this case, the muscles within their lower extremity), the greater the loss of strength and the greater the extent of muscle atrophy (shrinking) they will experience.⁴

The principle of progressive overload involves repeated stimulation of specific muscles (typically through a resistance training program) to induce favorable morphological changes in these targeted tissues. These changes can include the following:

• Structural changes to muscle fibers (increasing their contractile strength).
• Increasing the cross-sectional area (CSA) of muscle fibers.
• Improved neuromuscular efficiency between the neuromuscular junction.

With traditional strength training, an individual must use resistance of approximately 65%–­70% of their one-repetition maximum (1RM) to trigger a stimulus that will elicit increases in muscle size (muscle hypertrophy) and strength.^5,6

The problem for the injured athlete is the extent of required muscular force and effort needed to elicit these positive changes via progressive overload. The required 65%–70% maximal contractile ability can easily exceed the force production capabilities of the injured muscles and tendons (especially in earlier phases of injury recovery), which could lead to increased pain, further injury, and, ultimately, a prolonged recovery.

Additionally, the athlete may have otherwise healthy muscles but an injured or painful joint (hip, knee, ankle, etc.) incapable of bearing such loads. This inability to put such a load through a joint essentially determines how much stimulus its associated muscles can receive.

The longer the athlete must go without adequate muscle stimulus, the more extensive their loss of functional capacity will be within the limb. And herein lies the problem for many athletes and rehabilitative specialists: How do you make a muscle stronger when it (or its associated joint) doesn’t have the capacity to withstand the mechanical stress required for physical strengthening?

The traditional route taken by many rehabilitative specialists is the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), which involves placing electrodes over the targeted muscles and delivering an external electrical current through the skin, making the muscles contract.

While NMES certainly has a time and a place in musculoskeletal rehab, it also has its drawbacks, two of which are:

1. The ability of the electrode pads to only target superficial muscles and not necessarily deeper muscles.⁷
2. A highly inefficient and unnatural pattern of motor unit recruitment when compared to the body’s own motor unit recruitment pattern via the nervous system.⁸

Also, NMES cannot account for providing functional and sport-based movements that the athlete requires in late-stage rehab as part of a return-to-play protocol.

As such, a better way to provide adequate strength-inducing stimuli to injured muscle tissue has remained rather elusive for athletes and healthcare practitioners alike up until recently.

What Is Blood Flow Restriction Therapy?

Enter blood flow restriction therapy, a strength training intervention involving a restrictive cuff placed around the injured or affected limb with a predetermined amount of circumferential tension. This tension partly (but not fully) impedes blood flow to the working extremity and is maintained while the athlete or individual performs exercise against a predetermined load.

And here’s the kicker: That predetermined load doesn’t have to be anywhere near traditional strength training loads to elicit positive effects on the muscle(s).

Numerous studies have shown that BFR therapy can produce statistically significant changes in muscle size and strength when exercising at only 20%–30% of the individual’s 1RM rather than the traditional 65%–70% 1RM.^9–12

This allows the athlete to initiate strength training interventions much earlier in their rehab, equating to significantly decreased mechanical stress on the injured (and still vulnerable) tissues and structures.

BFR has been studied in various demographics, ranging from young, healthy athletes to frail, injured, and elderly populations. As such, it also has a time and place outside the world of rehabilitation. For the sake of this article, however, I’ll only focus on rehabilitative interventions within active populations.

How Does BFR Work?

While the exact mechanisms of BFR’s abilities to positively impact muscle strength and size at such a low intensity aren’t fully understood, there exists a decent amount of scientific data suggesting that the factors most responsible for BFR’s positive effects include:

• Metabolic changes to the local muscle environment (state of hypoxia, enzymatic changes, lactate levels, etc.).
• Neuromuscular changes, such as altered motor unit firing and recruitment patterns.
• Endocrine (hormonal) changes, including plasma growth therapy hormone (GH), norepinephrine (NE), and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1).

Essentially, this means that low-load BFR training likely produces favorable changes in muscle size and strength through mechanisms other than strictly through mechanical tension alone.^13,14

Traditional strength training relies extensively on muscle changes arising through mechanical tension. However, due to the low loads utilized with BFR, it seems that mechanical tension doesn’t play an extensive role when compared to the various metabolic changes it has shown to create within the targeted muscles. It is also possible that the combination of these two factors is responsible for the positive muscular effects seen with BFR training.

How to Perform BFR Training

BFR training for the lower extremities is most often performed by placing the restrictive cuff just below the gluteal fold of the thigh (just beneath your butt cheek). The cuff is placed as high as possible around the extremity to ensure that:

1. The cuff does not impede movement or create discomfort when moving or exercising.
2. The injured tissue is distal to (beneath) the area of cuff restriction.
3. The greatest extent of metabolic buildup occurs by having as much muscle fiber as possible undergo the restricted rate of blood flow.

When it comes to using restrictive cuffs, two primary cuff types can be utilized:

1. Elastic bands or wraps.
2. Pneumatic cuffs.

Elastic bands are the least expensive and most readily available options for most athletes. These can include common fitness bands such as Voodoo flossing bands or powerlifting knee wraps. While inexpensive and easy to acquire, their main drawback is their lack of dedicated feedback to ensure ideal pressure around the limb is utilized.

Pneumatic (air pressure) cuffs are the second option. While they’re more expensive and less readily available, they provide the user with accurate pressure readings for how much pressure is being placed around the extremity. These cuffs work by increasing the pressure around the extremity through manually controlled or automatically controlled means. The complexity (and subsequent cost) of these cuffs can range significantly from one system to the next.

Cuff Width and Pressure

Selecting ideal restriction pressure should be of paramount interest when performing BFR therapy; too little pressure will nullify any benefits derived from BFR, while excessive pressure can lead to excessive discomfort, pain, and numbness and prevent successful completion of the exercise.

Many studies that have examined the strength and cross-sectional area enhancement of muscle tissue with BFR therapy utilize restriction pressures ranging from 140 mmHg to 240 mmHg. A pressure ranging between 160 mmHg and 180 mmHg is often used, as this amount of pressure will occlude femoral arterial blood flow by 50%.¹⁵

Cuff width can also play a factor in the overall comfort of BFR therapy. Cuffs wider than 13.5 centimeters have been shown to cause greater subjective amounts of pain than cuffs 5 centimeters wide and inflated to the same pressure (200 mmHg).¹⁶

Exercises, Sets, and Reps

Exercise parameters utilized for BFR training can vary significantly based on numerous factors pertaining to the injured athlete. This can include the location and severity of their muscular injury, the stage of rehab, current pain levels, and other factors unique to the athlete. As such, there is plenty of room for the clinician to draw from their clinical expertise when employing BFR therapy.

Generally speaking, lower extremity exercises involving large and multiple muscle groups are ideal. The scientific literature commonly features studies using leg extensions. However, numerous other exercises can be utilized based on the athlete’s needs and equipment availability.

While there is no universal “right or wrong” protocol to follow when performing strengthening exercises, a highly utilized set and rep scheme within the scientific literature is the 30/15/15/15 protocol, which has been shown to be effective.^17–20

This protocol involves performing the initial exercise set for 30 repetitions, followed by a 30-second break. From there, 15 repetitions are performed for the second set, with a 30-second break afterward. This process is repeated until four total sets have been completed, with the last three sets consisting of 15 repetitions each.

The first set involves a higher repetition scheme with the belief that it will foster a more extensive metabolic change within the working and surrounding muscles. The short breaks between sets help ensure that the working muscles receive an inadequate recovery, helping to continually change the metabolic environment within the muscles.

It’s important to mention that results of BFR therapy are best obtained by utilizing a continuous pressure (i.e., keeping the limb partially occluded during rest breaks) rather than an intermittent pressure (where pressure is relieved between sets).²¹

For athletes in the early stages of rehab, or those not accustomed to BRF interventions, one singular exercise may be ideal. As the athlete gains confidence, strength, and endurance, additional exercises can likely be added. As a general rule, maximal cuff time should not exceed 20 minutes.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that BFR interventions can also involve walking protocols. Walking protocols have been commonly studied and produce favorable outcomes in muscle strength and hypertrophy.^22–24 While these protocols aren’t covered within this article, I have included general parameters in table 1.

How Often Should You Perform BFR Training?

With traditional strength training, the amount of mechanical stress the working muscles undergo necessitates a recovery period of anywhere from 48–72 hours before the muscles can tolerate another strength training stimulus.

With BFR therapy, this recovery period is typically not required, as the low 20%–30% intensity places minimal mechanical stress on the muscles and tendons compared to traditional strength training at higher loads. It is also much less taxing on the central nervous system.

Numerous scientific studies have implemented BFR training protocols ranging from twice a week to twice a day. While the training frequency most ideal for the injured athlete will be dictated by numerous factors (type of injury, stage of recovery, lifestyle factors, etc.), generally speaking, BFR therapy can take place at a much greater weekly frequency than with traditional strength training.^25,26 This high volume of frequent, low-intensity stimulations can likely greatly assist with the rate of recovery.

In general, a higher frequency of BFR intervention has yielded more favorable results than a lower session frequency, so long as exercise repetitions are not taken to volitional exhaustion (doing so can lead to delayed onset muscle soreness, which leads to reduced training frequency).

Safety Considerations with BFR Training

The most effective therapy in the world doesn’t mean much if it isn’t safe. As such, understanding the general consensus on the safety of BFR therapy (and its contraindications) is vital to anyone utilizing this intervention.

On the whole, BFR therapy is regarded to be a safe intervention for otherwise healthy populations, based on multiple studies examining various safety aspects.

Some of these aspects include:^27,28

• No impact on blood clotting when examined by changes in fibrin D-dimer.
• No impact on peripheral vascular mechanics.
• No impact on peripheral nerve conduction.

When Not to Use BFR Therapy (Contraindications)

As with any other therapeutic modality or intervention, there are times when BFR shouldn’t be utilized. While not an exhaustive list, general contraindications include the following:²⁹

• History of deep venous thrombosis (blood clots).
• Varicose veins.
• Pregnancy.
• Over open wounds or skin lesions.
• Diminished, absent, or altered sensation within the lower extremity.

Best Bet for Motivated Athletes

Every rehabilitative intervention has a time and place for its use. With BFR therapy, the best results will likely be obtained with motivated athletes who wish to take an active role in their rehabilitation. By appropriately stimulating (and challenging) skeletal muscle fiber at earlier phases of injury recovery, the athlete is likely to minimize muscle atrophy and strength loss while subsequently reducing time spent on the sidelines.

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. Briggs AM, Cross MJ, Hoy DG, et al. “Musculoskeletal health conditions represent a global threat to healthy aging: A report for the 2015 World Health Organization world report on ageing and health.” The Gerontologist. 2016;56(suppl_2):S243–S255.
2. Kell RT, Bell G, and Quinney A. “Musculoskeletal fitness, health outcomes and quality of life.” Sports Medicine. 2001;31(12):863–873.
3. Chan O, Del Buono A, Best TM, and Maffulli N. “Acute muscle strain injuries: A proposed new classification system.” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2012;20(11):2356–2362.
4. Hart JM, Pietrosimone B, Hertel J, and Ingersoll DC. “Quadriceps Activation Following Knee Injuries: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Athletic Training. 2010;45(1):87–97. doi:10.4085/1062-6050-45.1.87
5. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, and Roland T. “The Influence of Frequency, Intensity, Volume and Mode of Strength Training on Whole Muscle Cross-Sectional Area in Humans.” Sports Medicine. 2007;37(3):225–264. doi:10.2165/00007256-200737030-00004
6. Schoenfeld BJ. “The Mechanisms of Muscle Hypertrophy and Their Application to Resistance Training.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2010;24(10:2857–2872. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e840f3
7. Fuglevand AJ, Winter DA, Patla AE, and Stashuk D. “Detection of motor unit action potentials with surface electrodes: influence of electrode size and spacing.” Biological Cybernetics. 1992;67(2):143–153.
8. Doucet BM, Lam A, and Griffin L. “Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for skeletal muscle function.” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. 2012;85(2);201.
9. Loenneke JP, Wilson JM, Marín PJ, Zourdos MC, and Bemben MG. “Low intensity blood flow restriction training: a meta-analysis.” European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2012:112(5):1849–1959. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-2167-x
10. Slysz J, Stultz J, and Burr JF. “The efficacy of blood flow restricted exercise: A systematic review & meta-analysis.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2016;19(8):669–675. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2015.09.005
11. Hughes L, Paton B, Rosenblatt B, Gissane C, and Patterson SD. “Blood flow restriction training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017;51(13):1003–1011. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-097071
12. Centner C, Wiegel P, Gollhofer A, and König D. “Effects of blood flow restriction training on muscular strength and hypertrophy in older individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Sports Medicine. 2019;49(1):95–108.
13. Pearson SJ and Hussain SR. “A Review on the Mechanisms of Blood-Flow Restriction Resistance Training-Induced Muscle Hypertrophy.” Sports Medicine. 2015;45(2):187–200. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0264-9
14. Loenneke JP, Wilson GJ, and Wilson JM. “A Mechanistic Approach to Blood Flow Occlusion.” International Journal of Sports Medicine. 2010;31(1):1–4. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1239499
15. Takano H, Morita T, Iida H, et al. “Hemodynamic and hormonal responses to a short-term low-intensity resistance exercise with the reduction of muscle blood flow.” European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2005;95(1):65–73. doi:10.1007/s00421-005-1389-1
16. Rossow LM, Fahs CA, Loenneke JP, et al. “Cardiovascular and perceptual responses to blood-flow-restricted resistance exercise with differing restrictive cuffs.” Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging. 2012;32(5):331–337.
17. Martín-Hernández J, Marín PJ, Menéndez H, Ferrero C, Loenneke JP, and Herrero AJ. “Muscular adaptations after two different volumes of blood flow-restricted training: Analysis of occlusion training volume.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2013;23(2):e114–e120.
18. Yasuda T, Ogasawara R, Sakamaki M, Ozaki H, Sato Y, and Abe T. “Combined effects of low-intensity blood flow restriction training and high-intensity resistance training on muscle strength and size. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2011;111(10):2525–2533. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-1873-8
19. Vechin FC, Libardi CA, Conceição MS, et al. “Comparisons Between Low-Intensity Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction and High-Intensity Resistance Training on Quadriceps Muscle Mass and Strength in Elderly.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2015;29(4):1071–1076. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000000703
20. Yasuda T, Loenneke JP, Thiebaud RS, and Abe T. “Effects of Blood Flow Restricted Low-Intensity Concentric or Eccentric Training on Muscle Size and Strength.” Garatachea N, ed. PloS ONE. 2012;7(12):e52843. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052843
21. Fahs CA, Loenneke JP, Rossow LM, Tiebaud RS, and Bemben MG. “Methodological considerations for blood flow restricted resistance exercise.” Journal of Trainology. 2012;1(1):14–22. doi:10.17338/trainology.1.1_14
22. Sakamaki M, Bemben MG, and Abe T. “Legs and trunk muscle hypertrophy following walk training with restricted leg muscle blood flow.” Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 10(2):338.
23. Abe T, Kearns CF, and Sato Y. “Muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training.” Journal of Applied Physiology. 2006;100:7.
24. Abe T, Kearns CF, Fujita S, Sakamaki M, Sato Y, and Brechue WF. “Skeletal muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted leg muscle blood flow: implications for training duration and frequency.” International Journal of KAATSU Training Research. 2009;5(1):9–15. doi:10.3806;ijktr.5.9
25. Fujkita T, Brechue WF, Kurita K, Sato Y, and Abe T. “Increased muscle volume and strength following six days of low-intensity resistance training with restricted muscle blood flow.” International Journal of KAATSU Training Research. 2008;4(1):1–8.
26. Abe T, Yasuda T, Midorikawa T, et al. “Skeletal muscle size and circulating IGF-1 are increased after two weeks of twice daily “KAATSU” resistance training.” International Journal of KAATSU Training Research. 2005:1(1):6–12. doi:10.3806/ijktr.1.6
27. Clark BC, Manini TM, Hoffman RL, et al. “Relative safety of 4 weeks of blood flow-restricted resistance exercise in young, healthy adults: Blood flow restricted exercise.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2011;21(5):543–662. doi: 10.111/j.1600-0838.2010.01100.x
28. Loenneke JP, Wilson JM, Wilson GJ, Pujol TJ, and Bemben MG. “Potential safety issues with blood flow restriction training: Safety of blood flow-restricted exercise.” Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2011;21(4):510–518. Doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01290.x
29. Mason MJS, Owens JG, and Brown LWJ. “Blood flow restriction training: Current and future applications for the rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injuries. Techniques in Orthopaedics. 2018;33(2):71.