Blog

“Strength is measured in time.”

— Louie Simmons

Strength is important for every athlete, but even more crucial is displaying it over the course of time. For anaerobic dominant athletes, the ability to access strength immediately and accelerate through range of motion (ROM) is paramount. For the glycolytic-aerobic dominant athlete, maintaining output over the course of the event is key.

The application of strength in the first instance is known as Rate of Force Development—where he who turns their strength on immediately, wins. This will be witnessed in burst-oriented sports such as baseball, football, soccer, lacrosse, and basketball that rely on short-duration, explosive actions over the course of the contest. In the second instance, strength is accessed immediately and ideally maintained over the course of a distance-strength-endurance. Think stopwatch sports here: track, swimming, rowing, etc.

If the title quote holds true, then we can certainly appreciate the importance of time involved in applying and sustaining force. In essence, time can give us a way to quantify strength outside of the 1RM- or RM-type protocols.

While there is nothing wrong with max out sets or max rep sets, certain issues may mar their utility. Regarding a true 1RM, there is no strength test purer or more revered in the meathead psyche than crushing a big personal record (PR) single. The emotional euphoria coming off a big lift boosts the ego like nothing else, leaving you hungry to come back for more. A great state of being for sure, but how sustainable is it? We all know the answer: not for long. Dr. Bondarchuk even cited that the recovery time for a PR throw is about 15 days.¹

While there is nothing wrong with max out sets or max rep sets, certain issues may mar their utility. Share on X

While we certainly appreciate the 1RM mentality of our athletes in the weight room, a two‑week hangover will cost us valuable training time, especially if we are attempting to improve upon multiple bio-motor abilities at once. Not to mention the bulk of our trainees may not even possess the ability to recruit the high threshold motor units to benefit from maximal loading. In this case, what are we really testing (or training, for that matter)?² In my opinion, training should give more than it takes from you at every level.

Bar Speed and Velocity Based Training

If applied strength for athletes lies within producing it quickly, accelerating through the ROM, or maintaining output over time, then I would assume submaximal loads would be of the highest utility. If total reps (within a set) are kept within a range of quality, then it will be tough for things to go awry.³

One common new way to measure strength improvement is via bar speed through a velocity measuring device. These are great because you can extrapolate a “1RM” based on speeds you hit along a spectrum of submaximal loads and also manage loading for a particular training effect. This process is relatively simple if you have the tools—but what if you don’t?

One common new way to measure strength improvement is via bar speed through a velocity measuring device. These are great because you can extrapolate a 1RM based on speeds you hit along a spectrum of submaximal loads. Share on X

In the case of the author of the opening quote, Louie Simmons timed his world class bench press lifters and the same theme rang true—personal best and world record attempts were completed in no more than 3.25 seconds during the concentric, phase and if the effort went beyond this, then the lift would fail.⁴ From an absolute strength standpoint, this is a slow lift where extremely heavy weights are moved by those that possess the skill. From a special strength perspective, we can use the same line of thinking with submaximal loads. We can apply a time constraint within a given rep range; let’s say X number of reps within Y time.

In fact, Louie wrote about this as well to justify the rep range for dynamic effort work in the bench press and squat, keeping to the three-second rule for both. If the double in the squat or triple in the bench was significantly over this mark, then the weight is too heavy; if it was under the time cut, the load was deemed too light (keep in mind the time applies to the total reps within a set including the eccentric portion and amortization phase; we’ll delve into the details of this later).

Roots and Applications of Timed Max Effort

I must mention that this idea is not an original of mine, but a version of one I read about close to a decade ago. I can’t find the article I have in mind, but I believe it was written either by Dave Tate or Louie Simmons and titled either “The Timed Max Effort” or “Max Effort for Time.” It is also possible that title was a section of a larger article. My apologies to the original source for this imperfect citation, but I hope they know their variation lives on in spirit in these protocols.

At Performance Inspired Training, Inc., we routinely apply these protocols to the bench press, so I’ll present this as our example:

• Beginning with 50% body weight, we pick a range of 3, 5, or 10 reps depending on what we are trying to affect. We time the set with a stopwatch, aiming for one rep a second on the initial set.
• On the next set, we’ll add five total pounds and give an extra second to complete.
• If the previous set is completed within this time frame, then we add another five pounds and an additional second.
• We usually perform three sets but with the lower rep ranges we may go up to five.

The three- and five-rep protocols are obviously geared toward the anaerobic dominant athlete—the power athlete! We’ve used this with football players and baseball players to bridge the gap of general strength to applied strength that develops not only the RFD, but also the ability to “load” the eccentric rapidly. For the front seven players on the gridiron, the ability to absorb and control the impact of an oncoming opponent will determine the outcome of that interaction. For a baseball player learning to load the antagonist muscle groups for a throw with speed, the rhomboids, rear deltoids, and biceps will potentiate the stretch reflex of the prime movers in the throw (pecs, lats, triceps) for increased arm speed.

For the front seven players on the gridiron, the ability to absorb and control the impact of an oncoming opponent will determine the outcome of that interaction. Share on X

In the 10-rep protocol, the idea is the same but the effect is a bit different. For this timeframe, we are venturing into the endurance end of the spectrum. We are talking about the stopwatch sports like track and swim, where the ability to access power immediately and sustain it makes the difference between winning, placing, or neither. The concept is simple: the one who decelerates the least wins the race. By this logic, you’d better be able to stay strong for the time it takes to complete your race.⁵

We’ve applied this method in the training of male swimmers with some pretty good live results. This protocol was part of a proprietary program that helped lead to an Olympic Trials time cut in the backstroke for a 17-year-old high schooler. I have confidence in claiming this because this period of training was strictly in the gym during the lockdowns of 2020 when these kids were banned from training in the pool. We were able to sneak into a gym for three months of remote coaching, where this method was used throughout that period. When swim practice and meets commenced, it didn’t take long for this newly found power to be demonstrated as state and local pool records fell and the trial cut was attained.

We began as described above with ~50% body weight (100 pounds) for 10 reps in 10 seconds and climbed to a 30-pound increase over six weeks. After getting stuck at this mark for a couple of workouts we adjusted to a six-rep protocol using the same loading rules and improved to 175 pounds (~80% body weight) for six reps within six seconds. This process was interesting, as he was able to hit the 175-pound mark within three workouts (we used 10-pound increases at this point)—but was stuck for the remaining nine sessions before the six-second mark was cracked. My guess was that his system needed time to acclimate to stabilizing the load eccentrically for total power to be realized.

Timed Max Effort Protocols

In hindsight, this mode of work corroborates with DB Hammer’s definitions of work zones. Hammer classifies work zones as response and reserve.⁶ In my interpretation, we can understand this as:

1. Developing a surplus of strength.
2. Developing the ability to sustain it.

Some would argue, “Why not just do higher reps in general to effect strength endurance?” Hammer states, “A set of 10 squats vs a set of 10 shrugs are not equal.” The time demanded and systemic effect are hugely different given the difference in ROM and musculature used.

From a periodization standpoint, the zones of work (response and reserve) build on each other. Each time bracket is good for raising the capacity of work of the one beneath it. For example, work in the 9-25 second range is better for pure anaerobic development (4.5-9 sec.). The work in the longer periods allows some aerobic effect, allowing one to decrease recovery time between bouts of exercise and between intersession bouts, and to repeat outputs close to terminal level.⁶This gives coaches a working template to structure longer-term training cycles based on time where changes can be based on tracking performance effect. Like above, when my swimmer got stuck in the 10-rep protocol we dropped to a shorter time bracket of work and kept the needle moving forward.

Here are two protocols in live action:

Video 1. 10-Rep Protocol

We can see here that Pat progresses from 110 pounds in 12.55-13.07 seconds in week one to going sub-10 seconds with the same weight in the first set of the following week. In set two of week two, we move up to 115 pounds and add one second (10.62) to the time restraint. He hit the set in 11.10 seconds, so for the third set we kept the weight, which was hit for 10 reps in 11.66 seconds. Bar speed dropped a bit, but overall, a five-pound improvement in approximately one second less than the previous week. For week three, we will load the initial set with 110 pounds.

For MJ, his best set with 110 pounds was done in 13.63 seconds. His initial set in week two was performed in 12.30 seconds (1.33-second PR). We increased to 115 pounds with a time cut of 13.30 seconds and the time performance was the same as the first set. Given he made the cut within a second, we bumped the weight up another five pounds for the next set. It’s not in the video, but MJ pressed 120 for 10 in 13.43 seconds, which is 10 pounds heavier and one second faster than week one.

Just to be clear, I’m using the 10-rep protocol here with swimmers whose shortest race is in the 20-23 sec range. Their energy demands are different, as they must sustain power over time to cover as much “ground” as possible. This is known as stroke economy. This timed max effort feeds right into a racer’s mentality, allowing them to keep their mental focus sharp in training.

This timed max effort feeds right into a racer’s mentality, allowing them to keep their mental focus sharp in training. Share on X

Video 2. 5-Rep Protocol

Here we have a couple of multisport athletes, MS and Wheels, whose demands call for short bursts of strength where the tissues of the upper body must “load up” (eccentrically) in rapid fashion.

MS hits his initial set of 85 pounds in 4.06 seconds. This is very fast (and borderline too light)—but the key is that intent was applied and confidence was built. For set two we added five pounds and MS hit the set in 4.55—another fast one! Set three called for 95 pounds and another sub-five second performance, with 4.76. The next week we began with 95 and MS hit the five in 4.56—a two-tenths time drop! For set two, we jumped to 100 pounds for five timed at 4.73 seconds—which is just as fast as the previous week’s third set with five more pounds. For set three we added another five pounds for 105, which MS hit in 5.23 seconds. He is currently at 75% body weight with this effort.

For his training partner, Wheels, this was his first workout with this method. So, we established a baseline and were able to progress from 95 to 105 pounds within the course of the session. He was even able to hit his second set faster than the first.

Using time to quantify sets as opposed to pure load allows us to realize the benefits of dynamic effort and max effort simultaneously. Share on X

Using time to quantify sets as opposed to pure load allows us to realize the benefits of dynamic effort and max effort simultaneously. A maximal intent to move the bar as fast as possible within the given time frame can cover the short burst power spectrum to the special endurance. Not to mention, we have two ways to set a personal best every session—which helps in the incentive department. Give this method a try!

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. Mann, Bryan. “Testing & Statistics.” Strength Coach Network Fundamentals Level I.

2. Mann, Bryan. “Maximal Strength Development.” Strength Coach Network Fundamentals Level I.

3. Tsatsouline, Pavel. “The Origins of Strong First Programming: The Soviet System.” StrongFirst: The School of Strength. Retrieved from: www.strongfirst.com/the-origins-of-strongfirst-programming/

4. Simmons, Louie. Book of Methods. Westside Barbell. 2007.

5. Harvey, Nate. “How to Smash Track PRs with Timed Squats.” EliteFTS. Retrieved from: https://www.elitefts.com/education/how-to-smash-track-prs-with-timed-squats/

6. Buchenholz, Dietrich-Heinz. The Best Sports Training Book Ever. 2004.

Field and court sports share common goals: on offense create as much space as possible, and on defense close space between the defenders and the ball. We saw this when Michael Jordan created 4 feet of separation to hit the game-winning shot against the Utah Jazz in Game Six or when watching Darrelle Revis break up a pass by running the route for the WR. Al Pacino said it best in the movie Any Given Sunday: “The inches are all around us—one inch left you miss the ball, one yard too short you lose the game.”

This perspective puts a premium on the ability to sprint, accelerate, change direction, and decelerate. Improving general skills guides the planning process of off-season training. Being more skilled in sport means that an athlete has the ability to control their body accurately, efficiently, and in a timely manner, which provides faster sport motion. Zatsiorsky stated that “when sports performance improves, the time of motion turns out to be shorter.”

Breaking down sport, there appears to be a continuum of skills and capacities, with a capacity reflecting the amount something can produce. The capacities that contribute to the success of sporting movement are:

These capacities can be propulsive or decelerative, depending on the direction of the applied force. The capacities related to impulse cause change in movement and follow Newtonian law. As athletes get stronger and more powerful, they are able to increase their manipulation of momentum more successfully.

In my previous article, I went through the why of implementing decelerative-emphasized training. This article will go through the how of implementing decelerative training, breaking down how to classify, progress, and pair eccentric training elements with increased decelerative capabilities in mind.

Learning and Repping the Skill of Stopping

A skill is defined as “the ability to do something well, expertise.” As stated above, being more skilled in sport means that an athlete can control their body accurately, efficiently, and in a timely manner, which provides faster sport motion. In order to be proficient in any skill, the movement pattern must be rehearsed and fit a specific technical bandwidth that allows the athlete to express the necessary force to be successful.

Deceleration ability may be the biggest determining factor in performance when looking at general skills and their effect on sports, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

The reason athletes train is to prep for the demands of the sport while increasing the underlying factors affecting faster sports motion. Deceleration, in particular, is the underpinning factor in greater change of direction and max velocity speeds, which are directly responsible for creating and closing space.

Dr. Damian Harper defines deceleration as:

“[The] ability to proficiently reduce whole-body momentum, within the constraints, and in accordance with specific objectives of the task, while attenuating and distributing the forces associated with braking.”

Deceleration ability may be the biggest determining factor in performance when looking at general skills and their effect on sports. In the research article “COD task: does the eccentric muscle contraction really matter?,” Helmi Chaabene stated, “from a practical observation suggest that coaches should consider implementing eccentric strengthening, which is the main muscle contraction regime activated during deceleration, in their training program directed at promoting COD outcome.”

When looking at horizontal deceleration, research has pointed practitioners toward developing eccentric capacities specifically in the quads, hamstrings, and glutes. When the athlete has lower levels of eccentric strength in their lower body, it will cause reduced knee flexion in stopping movements, putting the majority of the mechanical stress on the hamstrings. Pairing this shallow knee flexion decel with poor trunk stability can lead to a dramatic increase in non-contact ACL injuries. Increasing eccentric force capabilities in key muscle groups and joints will increase performance and help mitigate several common injuries, such as hamstring strains and ACL tears.

Look at sprinting, as Peter Weyand and Ken Clark found that elite sprinters are able to decelerate the lower limb in the two-mass model faster than normal team sport athletes. The elite sprinter’s impulse curve or waveform should have much higher levels of eccentric peak force and eccentric rate of force (RFD). Contributing factors to great deceleration show up all over sports in a variety of skills.

Five Factors Affect How Well an Athlete Can Decelerate

Using the hierarchy developed by Al Vermeil, we see the progressions of how to increase braking ability, which will have a cascading effect on a player’s athletic abilities. This hierarchy is not limited to the lower body, as football blocking and block destruction both have decelerative actions, so apply the same methods to upper body training.

There is some crossover between the training elements in this hierarchy, as dynamic stability is present in all of these exercises and does not have its own catalog of exercises. I will focus solely on eccentric peak force and eccentric RFD, as plyometrics has been explored in recent articles. In the following sections, I will go through the exercises that have been implemented here at FAU and give examples and rationale on why we use them to develop deceleration capabilities.

Eccentric Peak Force

“Eccentric peak force allows athletes to harness gravity to create power.” – Antonio Squillante

From a kinetic perspective, peak force is the peak of the waveform curve or impulse curve. It can be described as the max amount. Traditionally, strength and conditioning coaches have measured this through 1RM testing. There is an understanding that the limiting factor in true training of peak eccentric force is the ability to complete the concentric phase of the lift. Research has shown that eccentrically, athletes can produce 120%–140% of a normal 1RM squat.

Peak force manipulation does not have time constraints, which is a major reason just focusing on strength production has limits when looking for transfer to sport activities, as sport has specific time windows for the application of force governed by movement. Getting strong just for the sake of getting strong will not guarantee better sports performance, as much as we would like to believe it will.

Strength is necessary, as the lack of it will guarantee failure in the ability to produce skills—but solely focusing on strength as the holy grail will reach a point of diminishing returns and lead to stagnation of performance gains. Strength and conditioning coaches do need to create reserves (or surplus) greater than what is demanded in sport to protect the athlete from injury. This also gives the athlete the ability to perform under some levels of fatigue if the capacity is developed to new and higher levels. These reserves are critical for performance, as athletes in field sports rarely are completely fresh during competition.

Strength and conditioning coaches do not want the first time that athletes experience 6x BW in eccentric forces to occur in competition, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

Building eccentric peak force is critical for enhancing the skill of deceleration, as peak force shows up in the later phases of horizontal braking in the steps leading to the penultimate step. As the ground contacts expand and the knee and hip angles deepen, the need for more force—specifically deceleration force—is pivotal in the athlete’s ability to manage the momentum. Deceleration forces have been recorded as high as 8x BW and occur between 50 milliseconds and 300 milliseconds. Neglecting the training of this sports phenomenon will most certainly lead to an increased risk of injury. Strength and conditioning coaches do not want the first time that athletes experience 6x BW in eccentric forces to occur in competition.

Peak force can be developed through two modalities:

1. Submaximal eccentric training
2. Supra-maximal eccentric training

Submaximal Eccentric Training

Submaximal eccentric training has been made popular by coaches like Charles Poliquin and Cal Dietz, and it is not a new training intervention. It can be applied to all exercises, and its reach is only limited by the strength and conditioning coach’s creativity. The greatest impact is on the implementation of tempo to compound lifts such as squats, hinges, presses, and pulls.

The benefit of using submaximal eccentric training is twofold.

1. 1. The structural adaptations that occur with increased time under tension. Using this method has a great hypertrophic response on the muscles. The time under tension stimulates an anabolic hormonal response, along with the increased tissue damage from the focused eccentric action, allowing greater size and strength adaptations to the CSA if adequate recovery periods are applied.

 

1. The adaptation of the tendon structures and motor unit recruitment, which, if implemented early in the training phase, can allow the strength and conditioning coach to be more aggressive in later progressions when programming plyometric activities, as GTOs are programmed to allow higher levels of stretch-shortening activities. The controlled lowering helps groove the pattern, increasing the technical proficiency of the lift, and is a great motor learning tool when teaching early progressions of exercises.

Using this method is a great alternative to the 3×10 rep prescription seen in the early offseason that is used too frequently, as it checks many of the same boxes as hypertrophy, tendon health, motor learning, lactate buffering, and even aerobic system development. This early intro to eccentrics at submaximal intensities accomplishes the adaptation of hypertrophy with higher intensities and sets the S&C up for supra-maximal eccentric training progressions later in the training cycle.

Squats are one of the most common means of implementing this method in the S&C community, but bodybuilders have been using tempo on isolated joint work for a long time. The load is less than 100% of 1RM, hence the name submaximal. The preferred intensity zones that we have found to be adequate in stressing the athlete safely were between 65% and 85% of 1RM. Once the 85% of 1RM threshold was crossed, it was extremely difficult for the athlete to complete the concentric portion of the lift. We use the rep range of 3–5, as 5+ reps dramatically increase the risk of injury due to fatigue. Sets of 5+ reps with tempo can expand past several minutes, which under significant load is not a safe environment for athletes.

Lower body examples:

Video 1. Squat.

Video 2. Sub max split squat.

Video 3. SL tempo RDL.

Video 4. R leans.

Video 5. Tempo side squat.

Upper body examples:

Video 6. Sub max bench tempo.

Video 7. Sub max DB bench.

Video 8. Tempo chin-ups.

Video 9. Submax tempo press.

Video 10. Sub max rows.

Supra-Maximal Eccentric Training

Using sub-max eccentrics is like eating appetizers at a restaurant: they are great starters, but you are still holding out for the main dish. Sub-max eccentrics set up athletes to handle higher-intensity training means like supra-maximal eccentric training and plyometric training. This style of training is defined as 100% of 1RM or greater: controlled lowering without the possibility of completing the concentric portion of the lift without outside aid.

Using sub-max eccentrics is like eating appetizers at a restaurant: they are great starters, but you are still holding out for the main dish, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

This is a very aggressive and intensive style of training that should be completed with minimal volume and carefully progressed. This method should be used with main core lifts such as presses, squats, and hinges. Coaches must have mature, attentive lifters, as equipment such as weight releasers or spotters is needed to accomplish this modality.

Supra-maximal eccentric training cannot be mentioned without bringing up Dr. John Wagle and his research pertaining to accentuated eccentric loading (AEL). Dr. Wagle defines AEL: “Accentuated eccentric loading (AEL) prescribes eccentric load magnitude in excess of the concentric prescription using movements that require coupled eccentric and concentric actions, with minimal interruption to natural mechanics.”

This style of training is supra-maximal eccentric and has, in several research papers, shown increases in strength and speed in field-based sports athletes. Eccentric training can lead to greater increases in total strength and, when paired with SSC activities, allows for more forceful and propulsive concentric actions. In Jamie Douglas’s research paper “Effects of Accentuated Eccentric Loading on Muscle Properties, Strength, Power, and Speed In Resistance-Trained Rugby Players,” he stated:

“The additional eccentric load afforded by slow AEL may provide a superior stimulus to the neuromuscular system, a stimulus that could be especially relevant to trained athletes simultaneously attempting to increase strength, power, speed, and aerobic fitness.”

Creativity must be at a premium when navigating equipment deficiencies and it shouldn’t push coaches away from using this training method, as it produces immense results.

Lower body examples:

Video 11. Squats with weight releaser.

Video 12. AEL supra max squats with SSB, no hands then hands.

Video 13. Supra max split squat.

Video 14. Trap bar deadlift AEL.

Video 15. Push press to controlled lowering supra max for press.

Video 16. Bench weight releaser supra max.

Video 17. Chin-ups partner pulldown.

Video 18. Deadlift to supra max RDL.

Video 19. AEL band-resisted box jump.

Video 20. AEL box jump.

Eccentric Rate of Force

Deceleration is a rate-dependent activity. From a kinetics standpoint, RFD is, in simple terms, how fast to peak force. There are several time brackets that people use to measure it between 50 milliseconds and 250 milliseconds. The steeper the slope, the more the athlete is able to express force faster.

Why is it important to manage force fast? In sports, there are limited time windows in which the athlete can apply force—if the window is extended, the movement slows down. Slower playing speed in specific situations like tackling, decelerating, or cutting can lead to serious injury. The main determinant of not being able to express force faster is slower skill execution, which makes it easier for the opponent to separate or close on you.

With eccentric RFD exercises, we want to increase the rate of the stop. These exercises must be performed with violent intent and have tremendous adaptive responses, such as increased muscle stiffness and higher recruitment of type IIx fibers. When classifying eccentric RFD exercises, the higher the jarring effect of the modality, the higher the demand of mechanical stress on the athlete and the increased GRF. These exercises fall into the classifications of altitude drop, snap downs, and rapid catch. Because of the high mechanical stress of the exercises, coaches only need to prescribe a small volume to elicit positive adaptation.

A simple way to conceptualize programming for snap downs is to prescribe them similarly to Olympic lifting variations. Quality over quantity is at a premium, as we don’t want to have these rapid decelerations happen with fatigue. Coaches can be extremely creative in the final position of the decel out of the snap down. We start with a square “athletic position” and move to a staggered stance. Limiting or removing the portion of the base of support has an increase on the dynamic stability demand. This exercise isn’t limited to the sagittal plane, as coaches can tap frontal plane decelerations as well.

Because of the high mechanical stress of eccentric RFD exercises, coaches only need to prescribe a small volume to elicit positive adaptation, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

When selecting drop heights for altitude drops and depth jumps, the most logical resource has to be Dr. Verkhoshansky. We looked at his recommendations and compared how applicable they would be in our specific setting and how compatible they would be with our intended training emphasis components. Dr. Verkhoshansky recommends that the drop should be 2.5 feet, or 30 inches, for explosive strength and reactive ability. For increasing peak force, the drop should be performed at 3.5 feet, or 42 inches!

As coaches can see, these aren’t small boxes to step off of. In the research paper “A methodological approach to quantifying plyometric intensity,” the authors found that a rebound vertical jump produced around 4.5x BW in GRF. If a vertical jump landing is more intensive than falling off a sub-vertical-height box, it didn’t make sense to start the altitude drop progression with anything short of the average vertical height for each position group. We add intensity to the exercise by increasing the height over the positional average.

Video 21. Drop landings.

Video 22. Altitude drops.

Video 23. Assisted snap downs.

Video 24. Tb snap downs.

Video 25. Db snap downs.

Video 26. Push-up drops.

Video 27. Bb drop rows

Video 28. DB drop rows.

Video 29. Full-speed decelerations.

Video 30. Decelerations.

Pay More Attention to Deceleration

As more light is shone on the sporting task of deceleration and its components, it is becoming more evident not only of its need on the training calendar but the performance benefit if this skill is improved. Field sports are about manipulating space, and deceleration not only increases COD but also improves speed. This is not a new training modality, as Loren Landow, Vern Gambetta, and Bill Parisi have been using similar training methods for decades—not to mention what the Soviets did for who knows how long.

Though it is not new, deceleration and its components often get neglected in the training process, says @CoachJoeyG. Share on X

Though it is not new, it often remains neglected in the training process. Thankfully, researchers like Damian Harper have brought notice to this neglected training element, and practitioners like Les Spellman and Jevaughn Pinnock are consistently creating new methods of training. As Dr. Harper stated: “You cannot speed up what you cannot slow down.”

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

Breath mechanics are at the literal core of the human body. Most obviously, they have a direct effect on the air coming in and going out of the body, but much more is going on. So much so that perturbed breath mechanics create a ripple effect that holistically and simultaneously impacts neurological, motor, and psychoemotional systems.

If coaches and athletes better understand how far-reaching the positive and negative effects can be, I’m sure that far more attention would be paid to teaching good breathing habits and alleviating poor ones. Even slight changes in breathing can yield significant long-term results—reaching far beyond the obvious and with a relatively low cost in time and effort.

If coaches and athletes better understand how far-reaching the positive and negative effects can be, far more attention would be paid to teaching good breathing habits and alleviating poor ones. Share on X

Conversely, compensatory and dysfunctional breathing mechanics in athletes have multiple adverse downstream effects on performance. Training for and competing in sports is stressful on the human body, and combining the repetitive and lopsided demands of all sports will create compensation. These effects are subtle and can be difficult to prioritize in the scheme of problems coaches face. Left unchecked, however, breathing compensations can aggregate like interest on an unpaid debt.

The goal for us as we study this subject here is to develop a basic understanding of the holistic nature of breath pattern dysfunction in athletes, some of the limitations it causes, how it presents itself on the field of play or in training, and what we can do about it within our scope of practice.

Athletic Breathing Dysfunction Overview

Let’s make sure we are crystal clear about what dysfunctional breathing is. It is “Inappropriate breathing which is persistent enough to cause symptoms, with no apparent organic cause” (Cliftonsmith & Rowley, 2011). This means that the athlete does not have an underlying disease state of which poor breathing may be an expression: for example, a metabolic disorder like diabetes that may cause a higher offload of energetic waste. Since many of these disorders are non-factors for athletic populations, most breathing issues can be attributed, at least in part, to poor mechanics.

As a point of conscience, though—if you have an athlete who consistently can’t breathe, send them to medical care!

The symptoms of poor breathing can be hard to spot because they can be situational and sporadic. However, breathing dysfunction can surface as shortness of breath during activity (duh), frequent yawing/sighing, chest and upper back pain, air hunger (“can’t catch my breath”), unusual fatigue, and anxiety/panic attack (this one is especially important in modern youth athletics).

The symptoms of poor breathing can be hard to spot because they can be situational and sporadic. But the energetic costs for poor breathing can aggregate. Share on X

Additionally, negatively altered breathing mechanics can result in altered motor patterns downstream that disrupt postural orientation as well as extremity coordination. Long-term hyperinflation patterns can result in poor length-tension relationships in trunk muscles and put undue stress on postural muscles in the low back especially. Poor breathing also does the obvious: you bring in less oxygen/per unit breath (aka vital capacity). In other words, you’re shallow, Hal. Last but not least, aerobic efficiency can become enfeebled over time, and energetic costs for poor breathing can aggregate.

The nature of the human body is so completely interwoven and interrelated that it can be difficult to say with absolute precision that “X issue” equals “Y problem.” However, identifying areas of emphasis can help coaches better understand the components of complex systems in a way that allows for better problem-solving and application of interventions.

Because ventilation is a foundational component of human anatomy and physiology, many things can cause and contribute to disordered breathing (and vice versa). More than just poor mechanics contribute to breathing disorders—everything from pain, autonomic arousal, and sinus dysfunction to pregnancy and diet can contribute to the etiology of breathing issues. Regardless of origin, the continuum of effects of altered breathing is varying degrees of physiological, psychoemotional, and biomechanical outcomes.

The best way to begin attacking these issues is by first identifying the ideal and moving toward that ideal with progressive skill. Don’t get too lost in the corrective weeds and steal all the fun from the sports physios out there.

Keep It Super Simple

All roads lead to Rome. Regardless of where an athlete’s breathing problems come from—or the direction they’re going—there has to be a mechanical change to elicit a positive response. This means that there’s a change in movement skill at the most fundamental level, and that’s where coaches live.

If you’re a coach, rather than focusing on the minutiae of correctives, use simple mechanical tools that athletes can learn and repeat accurately. Share on X

There is a vast literature on the many positive effects of “diaphragmatic breathing” as well as “chest breathing” and the negative ones. If you’re a coach, rather than focusing on the minutiae of correctives, use simple mechanical tools that athletes can learn and repeat accurately. As my friend Mickey Schuch says: “Is it robust? Is it reliable? Is it repeatable?”

A Word on Cueing

When I hear things like “use your diaphragm,” my neck hair stands on end a little. No coach worth their salt would ask you to run faster by “using your rectus femoris.” Instead, we provide cueing that gives a point of focus and movement instructions (constraints) that allow the athlete to envision the end result and then start iterating. It’s the same with breath mechanics.

Have an accurate and reliable ideal that you will use as a measuring stick. Most generalist coaches have neither the time nor the inclination to become breathing experts. However, a basic understanding is a must because of the breadth and depth of both the harm and the benefit from breathing.

A basic understanding of breath mechanics is a must because of the breadth and depth of both the harm and the benefit from breathing. Share on X

In that vein, let’s touch a little bit on identifying and cueing ideal mechanics—for the sake of brevity, we’ll cut right to the chase. (If you are looking for a more detailed reference on breath mechanics, check out this article.)

Three steps to keep it super simple:

1. Cue the ribs. Learn to move ribs, not bellies. Athletes brace their trunk position to deal with higher forces on their structure, so moving the belly is not a viable option under many circumstances, especially competitive ones.
2. Fill the bucket. Ribs should move in waves from bottom to top as well as up to the sides just like filling a bucket with water.
3. Control the flow. Imagine sipping air slowly through a straw (but with your nose). If you try to suck everything in at once, the straw will collapse. Keep the flow smooth and deliberate.

These three principles will help orient athletes toward breathing that primarily uses the diaphragm and intercostals while using accessory breathing muscles as, well, accessories. When you see breathing like this, the ribcage moves smoothly and evenly all the way around the torso. As we’ll discuss in more detail, the demands of athletics have some compensatory and dysfunctional patterns that can be easily redirected with simple, well-applied tools.

Video 1: Learn how to cue ideal mechanics before introducing any potential corrections.

As a final reminder: it’s easy to get stuck in the correctives without practicing the movement well and often. Use the ideal mechanics as a benchmark before and after any intervention, so you know if you’ve made a change.

Regardless of origin, you can alter breathing habits toward the positive with mechanical interventions that don’t require specialized expertise. The easy way to stratify these is through lower-body- and upper-body-focused interventions.

Lower Body Interventions

It might seem like the lower body has less implication for breathing mechanics and that improving them may not have much effect on issues in this area. Not at all. Well-implemented breathing strategies can dramatically and positively affect outcomes for lumbopelvic dysfunction. It may be truly impossible to separate the mechanical from the holistic outcomes of improved diaphragm engagement, but let’s start there.

Athletes who, through genetic anthropometry or movement history, develop local extension moments in the lumbosacral area often have increased tone in deep hip flexors that can put undue stress on the system and limit diaphragm excursion. Contrary to popular belief, athletes with a proclivity for spinal extension will not snap in half at the first sign of trouble. So, it’s important we alter our thinking from one of correction to one of integration. Is the system working together optimally? Is one spot stealing efficiency from another?

Contrary to popular belief, athletes with a proclivity for spinal extension will not snap in half at the first sign of trouble. It’s important we alter our thinking from correction to integration. Share on X

The psoas and the diaphragm share some important anatomy with serious implications for not only better breathing but also spine and hip function. The bottom of the diaphragm, called the crura, comes down like snake fangs between T10 and T12 and crisscrosses with the upper and medial portions of the iliopsoas, continuing upward toward the spinal origin of the diaphragm. Of course, also woven in are the usual suspects: QLs, transverse abdominis, latissimus dorsi, and the other members of the paraspinal gang. Most importantly, all that tissue interlocks with the thoracolumbar junction and acts like a Chinese finger trap to mechanically reinforce that area of the body.

The first lower body intervention we’re focused on here is a kind of pelvic “tempering” (a term coined by the legendary Donnie Thompson). Here we use direct pressure into the iliopsoas with hip and leg extension to deal with tissue stiffness. Due to the anatomical relationship with the breathing mechanism described above, maintaining smooth, controlled breathing is an absolute must to maximize this technique. If it feels like it’s too much, back off or stop.

Video 2. Iliopsoas Tempering.

The second lower body intervention is the classic deadbug, but with some applied nuance. Here we emphasize lumbopelvic positioning with breathing added in. This “core” exercise can be valuable if done with attention and intention instead of the lackadaisical approach of an actual dead bug that is all too common in even the fanciest training halls. Pressurize the trunk using the cueing from above and then move the hip into relative extension without creating local movement at the spine. This technique reveals some nuanced connections in the kinetic chain while at the same time creating a therapeutic input.

Video 3. Deadbug

These exercises can be used separately or in a superset fashion. I’ve had the most success with the latter application. The first technique creates some options for movement, and the second dials in the software. Going back and forth with low but focused repetitions gives the athlete a feel for the breathing’s new range and application without getting overwhelmed.

Application

Alternate

1. 1:00–2:00 body tempering/side (with 3–5 reps leg extension).
2. 6–10 deadbugs: Slow and controlled! Set posture, nasal inhale (fill the bucket), extend leg, return leg, nasal exhale.

Key Points:

• These exercises are subtle, not passive. Keep your and your athlete’s attention locked on the details.
• Do not approximate an arbitrary range of motion. Focus on the constraints given in the video to maximize the outcomes.
• Make the breath the center of the focus for the exercises and everything else secondary.

The lower body techniques described here are not intended as a panacea by any means, but they can move the needle on essential pieces of the breathing puzzle. I’ve found these exercises incredibly beneficial for not only helping athletes reset faulty breathing mechanics but also helping to create a more integrated relationship between the tissues around the trunk and the ability to manage pressure. This enhances overall stability and can diminish negative feedback from pain-sensitive tissues and increase mechanical breathing efficiency.

Bonus Technique: Super Lunge

You want to be super, don’t you? Good. Pay attention to the details of this exercise, and you will be.

Video 4. Super lunge: The basic lower body interventions use breath and movement together to progressively improve the coordination of the trunk to deal with force inputs more efficiently.

Upper Body Interventions

Athletes, in particular, often suffer from “hyperinflation” issues stemming from apical breathing. Apical breathing is when the mechanical load for ventilation is adversely distributed to the accessory muscles of the chest and shoulders. This cycle often results in poor and partial exhalation preventing the full contractile cycle of the diaphragm. Over time, this, combined with other mechanical inputs, can create aggregate compensations and potentially true dysfunction. These can limit performance through their contributions to mechanical issues in the upper body but also by restricting optimal energetic efficiency that is managed by breathing.

Most of the time, when we think of neck and shoulder problems, in particular, improving breath mechanics does not come to mind as a solution. However, simple interventions that improve breath mechanics have both holistic and direct mechanical benefits, specifically for issues in the neck and shoulder. Holistically, removing roadblocks to breathing efficiency takes the edge off the nervous system, yielding a net benefit to any movement strategy that may be used body-wide.

Simple interventions that improve breath mechanics have both holistic and direct mechanical benefits, specifically for issues in the neck and shoulder. Share on X

Additionally, many accessory breathing muscles have crossover functions in the upper body, the most obvious being the scalene, sternocleidomastoid (SCM), and pec major and minor. These muscle groups implicated in neck and shoulder dysfunction frequently have a breathing pattern disorder as an associated causal factor. Conversely, neck and shoulder dysfunction affects downstream breathing pattern issues.

Our first upper body intervention is to help bring awareness to and encourage the full range of motion in the ribcage. This includes the global sense of thoracic extension and rotation but also the more granular relationships of the ribs to each other. Larger tools like rollers tend to encourage global extension. To get more precise, a smaller fulcrum is necessary. For this, you can use a cheaper and more ubiquitous tool like a lacrosse or tennis ball or get something specifically designed for refined t-spine access.

Video 5. T-spine opener.

Key Points:

• Be purposeful. Don’t just slide all over the place like you’re getting moved down an assembly line.
• Use breath first. A full inhale will create pressure and traction in the area first.
• Pops don’t mean it’s working. Your indicator shouldn’t be that your spine sounds like a crackling campfire. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn’t. Can you breathe/move better?

The second upper body intervention is the neck peel. This is simply using a tool to create drag over the SCM and other regional tissues to relieve tension associated with apical breathing and neck/shoulder dysfunction. This technique is all about using the ball to wind up superficial fascia. This can be done almost anywhere, whether seated or standing, and in my experience, it gives tremendous relief from a variety of issues.

Video 6. Neck Peel.

Key Points: 

• Go slow. Three seconds to move an inch is a good rule of thumb.
• Create drag. Grab and slide the tissues; don’t push into the neck.
• Explore and move. Start with the traditional origin and insertion, but remember that the systems are interconnected. Go where things are sticky.

Some final words on applying these tools. Repetition over intensity: your athlete should be able to control their breathing the entire time. Order matters: do the steps given in the video in order—every time. The given order emphasizes tissues in very specific ways, so don’t just wing it.

Performance Anxiety

While performance anxiety doesn’t have as obvious of a mechanical cause as some of the issues we’ve already discussed, understanding the part that breath plays is essential for helping athletes on your roster who may suffer from this issue. Furthermore, it gives coaches and athletes access to a solution that is:

1. Free of stigma.
2. Accessible anytime and anywhere, whether in the field of play or not.
3. Within a coach’s wheelhouse.

Performance anxiety has multifactorial origins, and breathing dysfunction—while not the sole cause—usually plays some part in the propagation of performance-related anxiety. That said, there are definitely signatures patterns of shallow, inhale-focused breathing that cause dysregulation in carbon dioxide levels. Over-arousal of the autonomic nervous system expresses itself as anxiety on the psychoemotional level but as breathing dysfunction on the physiological level. This increased arousal response acutely upregulates the urge to breathe. Those suffering from performance anxiety are often referred to as “stuck on the inhale.” This means that they’re breathing in the upper part of the ribcage with the muscles of the neck and shoulders.

Breathing dysfunction usually has some part in performance anxiety. Making breathing the focal point turns what can be a hard-to-grasp problem of the mind into a physical skill the athlete can learn. Share on X

Self-perpetuation of these habits through behavioral-psychological-physiological loops can be interrupted by pulling on the lever of breathing. Making breathing the focal point turns what can be a hard-to-grasp problem of the mind into a physical skill the athlete can learn. This is really empowering because athletes know how to learn physical skills!

Video 7. Breathing intervention for performance anxiety.

When performance anxiety hits the breathing, symptoms tend to come as short repetitive urges to inhale. Trying to “take a deep breath” at that point can actually worsen the feeling of panic. Instead, “catch the exhale” by pushing air out with short, controlled bursts and then slowing things down progressively.

Think of it the situation as two spinning gears. One gear is the athlete’s anxious state: it’s spinning at 1,000 RPMs. The other gear is breathing. If you bring that gear in at 100 RPMs, they’re too far apart, and they’ll just grind each other up. Catching the exhale is like bringing the catch gear in at 950 and then slowing the whole thing down together. Pump the brakes—don’t smash them.

One more thing: Stop. Just stop. Unless your athlete has something life-changing on the line in this game or practice, have them discontinue play and regain their composure. The headlines are chock full of athletes who have pushed through mental health issues at a serious personal cost. No need to add to that pile.

Additionally, this generally moves away from thinking of athletes as commoditized sports robots and acknowledges that there’s a human being in front of you. This approach will undoubtedly build trust between you and your team on a deeper and more meaningful level.

Not the One but the Many

When it comes to an issue that has the potential to reduce function and efficiency system-wide, it behooves coaches to take notice and minimally learn the basics. Breathing pattern dysfunction is broad-reaching and nefarious. There is rarely a moment of catastrophic collapse. In most cases, they slink in slowly, under the radar. A little too much mouth breathing here, a little back or neck pain there, a bit more use of the inhaler, mix in some pre-game anxiety, and you have a nice little cocktail of issues that can put serious limits on athlete health and performance over the long haul.

It’s not one big swing of the axe. It’s death by a thousand cuts.

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

Resources

Bahr R, Andersen SO, Løken S, Fossan B, Hansen T, and Holme I. “Low back pain among endurance athletes with and without specific back loading—a cross-sectional survey of cross-country skiers, rowers, orienteerers, and nonathletic control.” Spine. 2004;29(4):449–454.\

Bradley H and Esformes J. “Breathing pattern disorders and functional movement.” International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 2014;9(1):28–39.

Cliftonsmith T and Rowley J. “Breathing Pattern Disorders and Physiotherapy: Inspiration for Our Profession.” Physical Therapy Reviews. 2011;16(1). doi:10.1179/1743288X10Y.0000000025

Hodges PW, Eriksson AEM, Shirley D, and Gandevia SC. “Intra-abdominal pressure increases stiffness of the lumbar spine.” Journal of Biomechanics. 2005;38(9):1873­­–1880.

During the first 17 years of my teaching and coaching career, I had little interest in privately training athletes. I related this to my experience as a math teacher: while I love teaching math, I didn’t tutor students privately because I prefer to have other mental stimulation after teaching similar content for five hours. The same could be said for training athletes—especially when I was in-season. I just didn’t think I would have the energy for it.

Then COVID-19 hit, and during my daily walks, I continued to run into the same neighbor. He recognized that I was a track coach (possibly because all I wear is Homewood-Flossmoor track and field attire)…and after a few conversations, he convinced me to train his child.

This was a blessing for me, as I needed the mental stimulation and coaching challenge to help fill the void that a canceled season created. Fast forward a couple of years, and I am still in the business of training athletes privately.

This article will not serve as a how-to but, rather, a reflection on takeaways from working through the process. Some thoughts may encourage you to start or continue training athletes privately; others may do the opposite.

Coaching Smaller Groups Has Helped Me Assess My Efficiency with Larger Ones

I coach a track team that typically has around 90–120 athletes, and my group on that team (jumpers) usually includes 20–25 athletes. I am used to working with large groups and managing multiple tasks within the same session. If you talk to most track and field coaches, they will say that they love the entire season, but championship season is extra special. One of the reasons why coaches enjoy championship season (besides the higher stakes) is because the athlete-to-coach ratio is lower.

Due to the design of my business—training 1–6 athletes at a time—I always feel as if I am in championship season during a session. Instead of feeling like I’m juggling 10 flaming bowling pins, I’m juggling three scarves, and it truly makes each session enjoyable.

I really feel like the additional practice has caused me to become more efficient in general and, more importantly, allowed me to identify the most critical issues to address for progress to occur. Share on X

One of the difficulties in coaching large groups is giving athletes timely feedback. The large number of athletes I have at track practice means that some of the video analysis and corresponding feedback must be done outside practice time and addressed during a later practice. Due to the smaller numbers I have in the private sector, this is easy to do within the session. While I have been giving feedback based on video during track practice most of my career, I really feel like the additional practice has caused me to become more efficient in general and, more importantly, allowed me to identify the most critical issues to address for progress to occur.

Improved Ability to Manage Training Loads for Track Athletes with Private Coaches

Another reason why I had some apprehension about training athletes privately was because of my experience as a high school coach. There is little more frustrating than an athlete having a fantastic track practice with a maximum velocity focus and then coming back absolutely fried the next day because of the 400 repeat session that was held after track practice with their private trainer.

Communicating with the athlete’s coach helps combat all-too-common issues like this. The coach can provide invaluable information in regard to what they see as strengths and weaknesses and what they feel the athlete needs to be able to do to receive more playing time or a more prominent role within the game plan. Another important question I ask is if the athlete wants me to communicate with their coach—sometimes they don’t, and it is my job to honor their wishes.

Even more important than communication with the athlete’s coach is communication with the athlete. The first four questions I ask each athlete in an individual/small-group session are:

1. How are you?
2. What have you done lately?
3. How do you feel today?
4. What’s coming up?

Based on these answers, we then end up doing 0%–100% of what I had in mind for the session. I have a hierarchy of activities based on intensity for common training themes/activities (acceleration, maximum velocity, curvilinear work, change of direction, etc.). Sometimes I have to switch to a different theme than planned; other times, I just work off the hierarchy of the theme that was planned.

To parents and athletes reading this, if your private trainer is not asking similar questions or is working off a prescribed program, that is a huge red flag. These questions are especially important if the athlete is in-season, but honestly, they carry close to the same weight when the athlete is in the off-season. What the athlete may be doing with the team in the off-season or in their physical education class must be considered for maximum gains to occur. While I firmly believe physical gains can happen during the competitive season, the off-season should be where the most occur. Do not let a lack of communication jeopardize gains at any point during the year!

At the end of the day, private trainers do not determine playing time, so potentially causing a conflict between the athlete and coach is doing the athlete a disservice, says @HFJumps. Share on X

The answers to the second and fourth questions can be activities that I deem questionable, but that’s irrelevant. My job is to take what I am presented with and create a plan of action to elicit the best possible outcome. While it may be difficult at times, involving myself in the process of questioning what the athlete is doing in their sports practice or off-season training will not help the situation. I would wave another huge red flag for any private trainer who actively initiates this conversation. At the end of the day, private trainers do not determine playing time, so potentially causing a conflict between the athlete and coach is doing the athlete a disservice.

Having a large toolbox to draw from is the best way of serving a client within the 0%–100% of what you may have planned for the session. It’s helpful to have a range of intensities for activities that focus on a specific issue. Most of my clients come to me to improve their speed. I am a firm believer that sprinting with maximum intent and intensity is the best way to do this; however, sometimes that is simply not an option based on the following:

• The weather (soon to not be an issue for me as my gym will have a Shredmill).
• How the athlete is feeling.
• What’s on the near horizon for the athlete.

Having a large toolbox allows for the session to be productive, even if it cannot be ideal.

• • Max-Velocity Sprinting: The Masters is said to be a tradition unlike any other, and in terms of training, sprinting at maximum velocity is a stimulus unlike any other.

 

• • Wickets: Most novice athletes operate at a submaximal velocity when sprinting through wickets. So, wickets can be a great option to rehearse the technical components of top-end speed while ensuring that the nervous system is ready to rock the following day.

 

• • Jump Rope Run and Med Ball Punch Run: Maybe the first two items are too intense because the athlete is in a return-to-play scenario. Both of these drills offer the opportunity to utilize foot strike mechanics and postures found during maximum velocity.

 

• Altitude Drops and Rebound Jump Test: Athletes may be in a situation where the cyclic nature of sprinting causes irritation. These two exercises allow for them to still be challenged with large forces.

Video 1. An example of an athlete performing an altitude drop, which is a fantastic way to allow an athlete to express force eccentrically. Coaches can match the angles found in the landing position with the training target. If it were maximum velocity, I would look for less bend in the knee and hip.

• Isometrics: My preferred method of isometrics is of the “extreme” variety, which involves an active action by antagonist muscle(s). It can be argued that even though the amount of movement is often minuscule, it is still considered high-velocity exercise.

The clients who have made the most progress are the ones I have seen at least twice per week. I understand this is not feasible for some athletes for a variety of reasons, so I do my best to devise an individualized plan for them to follow based on their entire workload. “Homework” can increase the rate of progress, but it does not replace in-person sessions. I know trainers who will not take on clients who cannot commit to meeting at least twice a week. While I don’t do that, I understand their position, and it may make sense for you!

4 Logistical Considerations for H.S. Track Coaches Pondering Private Training

There are other concerns you should be aware of if you’re considering starting to privately train athletes. These are less development-focused and more business-oriented.

If you’re starting to privately train athletes, you should open a separate bank account, start an LLC, obtain insurance, and have them sign a waiver, says HFJumps. Share on X

1. 1. Open a bank account. Do your best to run all of your financial transactions out of it. This makes it easier when tax time rolls around. Also, take advantage of the tax write-offs owning a business affords you! It is never a bad idea to talk to an accountant about this.

 

1. 1. If you are going to train people out of your home, start an LLC (or something similar). I used Legal Zoom. The LLC offers protection in case you get sued. Put simply, it separates your personal assets from your business assets.

 

1. 1. Obtain separate insurance. My uncle is a vice president of an insurance company. Instead of obtaining insurance through the company he works for, he advised me to use K&K Insurance. They offer $1 million in coverage for under $250. You can obviously go in whichever direction you want with an insurance provider, but this at least gives you a point of reference.

 

1. Consider having clients fill out a waiver. My wife is a lawyer—she tells me waivers are essentially useless. However, you may still want to use one for a small level of protection. A simple internet search on “personal training waivers” is a good place to start.

Whether you’ve been in the private game for a while, are new to it, or are considering getting into it, I hope some of the items mentioned here have sparked some thought. Since I am new to it myself, I would love for the comments to be filled with additional pieces of advice!

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

As I like to tell the athletes who undergo physiological testing with me, “this test is like a really long warm-up with 10 minutes of pain at the end.” On the last couple of steps, you can expect burning legs and lungs while your heart beats close to its maximal frequency.

When you go to the lab to get testing done, that’s usually what you remember: the pain and discomfort you experienced as you neared the end of your ramp or step test.

But behind this veil of sensory overload, there is a tremendous amount of information that we, as coaches, can collect through physiological testing.

There is a tremendous amount of information that we, as coaches, can collect through physiological testing, says @SeanSeale. Share on X

The purpose of this article is to share how I use a physiological profile test to individualize, optimize, and orient the conditioning training of the athletes I have the opportunity to work with.

The first section briefly introduces the intensity spectrum—the different physiological thresholds, intensity domains, and training zones—which will make the rest of the article easier to understand and follow. Even if you don’t have extensive exercise physiology or conditioning knowledge, this first part will provide a strong foundation to understand these concepts.

The second section explains what a physiological profile is, why it is useful to track our athletes’ fitness, and how that data can help us coaches make better decisions regarding training interventions and program design.

In the third section, I describe in full detail which test protocols I use and why I chose them over other available options. This section also covers which measurement tools I use to complete the physiological profile as well as their respective strengths and weaknesses. (In the interests of transparency, I’d like to mention that I collaborate with and am affiliated with Moxy Monitor, VO2 Master, and Breathe Way Better.)

This article wouldn’t be complete without including my process for interpreting the data collected during the test and how I organize it into a report for both the coach and the athlete. This will be covered in the fourth section.

To finish, I will provide some practical examples around training recommendations and planning for different types of athletes I’ve worked with and what results they achieved.

Section 1: Defining Thresholds, Intensity Domains, and Training Zones

Before we delve into the physiological profile and what it entails, we must establish some common ground and make sure we speak the same language. Let’s kick things off with a few definitions.

The term “threshold” gets thrown around a lot in conditioning and endurance circles, but it is seldom defined. Although it’s important to acknowledge the dynamic nature of thresholds, for simplicity’s sake, we will define a physiological threshold as representing the point of transition between two different intensity domains.

There are two primary thresholds (threshold 1 and threshold 2) that can each be measured at different levels of the organism, resulting in many other (and often confusing) names used to qualify them. The illustration below summarizes the most common terms used to define those two thresholds.

There are four exercise intensity domains. An intensity domain is an intensity range that elicits a distinct physiological response, commonly centered around the VO2 kinetics, or simply put, the way that the trend of oxygen uptake behaves in the body.

In the moderate domain (below threshold 1), oxygen uptake reaches a plateau shortly after exercise onset. In the heavy domain (between thresholds 1 and 2), we can observe a “slow component” or delayed steady state in VO2.

In the severe domain (above threshold 2), the slow component never settles, and if the activity is carried out for long enough, the athlete reaches their VO2peak and task failure shortly after. The extreme domain is characterized by intensities so high that the subject reaches task failure before manifesting their VO2peak (peak oxygen uptake).

Together with thresholds, these concepts form a practical model to individualize the training intensity distribution of our athletes accurately. Since training in different domains triggers different physiological responses, we can use this model to target the specific intensity that will, in turn, elicit the training adaptations we’re looking for.

Once we have defined thresholds and domains, we can cut these up into training zones to simplify training prescription and application. As Jem Arnold stated, “intensity domains are descriptive while training zones are prescriptive.” Different coaches use different numbers of zones; I will be talking about seven distinct training zones.

You can also learn more about thresholds and training zones here.

Section 2: Defining the Physiological Profile

Now that we have a common understanding of what those terms mean, let’s talk about the physiological profile, what it is, why it’s important, and what it’s composed of.

What Is a Physiological Profile?

A physiological profile is a test (or series of tests) that allows us to measure and analyze an athlete’s unique conditioning profile within a given modality. If we want to plan training intelligently, we can gain a significant advantage by knowing what is going on “under the hood.” Referring to section 1, we want first to define the athlete’s thresholds, intensity domains, and training zones.

We also want to know the athlete’s respiratory capacity, how they use it (respiratory coordination), how much oxygen they consume at different intensities, and how metabolically efficient they are.

Using the data collected during a physiological profile and knowing the athlete’s needs, we can make informed decisions on how to orient their training relative to the adaptations we seek to elicit. Share on X

By using the data collected during a physiological profile and knowing the athlete’s needs (sport, competition calendar, strengths/weaknesses, etc.), we can make informed decisions on how to orient their training relative to what adaptations we seek to elicit.

For this article, I’ll refer to testing being done on a bike. I like using the Concept 2 BikeErg for its versatility, simplicity of use, and availability in local gyms. Since I’m working primarily with CrossFit and combat sports athletes at the moment, this modality works quite well. 

Why Is the Physiological Profile Important/Useful?

Conditioning training is often prescribed on the basis of heart rate zones given as percentages of the athlete’s maximal heart rate. To draw a parallel to strength development, this is the equivalent of prescribing squat weights as percentages of the athlete’s body weight. For some, it will be right on the money, but for the vast majority of people, it will either be too high or too low.

To give a concrete example of this, the percentage of max heart rate equivalent to threshold 1 (or the transition from zone 2 to zone 3) in the athletes I’ve tested so far ranges from 65% to 85%.

This is why it’s imperative to establish an athlete’s individual intensity profile. We want to be sure that the training we program is the stimulus needed on an individual basis to drive specific athletic and physiologic adaptations.

Fixed percentages of max heart rate are not only an oversimplification, but they also don’t reflect the adaptive nature of human physiology.

As you train consistently over time, your physiology (hopefully) changes. This has to be reflected in your individual intensity profile for your training to stay “true” to your abilities.

As you train consistently over time, your physiology (hopefully) changes. This has to be reflected in your individual intensity profile for your training to stay ‘true’ to your abilities. Share on X

So first and foremost, a physiological profile provides us with the athlete’s unique intensity distribution profile. This is then organized into training zones for practical reasons. The zones will usually be defined through power/speed AND heart rate values to help with programming, progress tracking, and autoregulation when necessary.

In addition to providing individualized training zones for the athlete, the physiological profile will also help our decision-making process when deciding what qualities need to be developed in that athlete. Knowing “what to do next” has to be contextualized relative to the competition calendar and time of the season, but if we can SEE where our athlete is strong and where he needs work, this does help us program in a more coherent way overall.

Another benefit of the physiological profile is that it provides us coaches with a substantial amount of data that can be tracked and compared over time.

It’s also a great way to know if your training interventions are ACTUALLY making your athletes better. And more specifically, what aspects of their physiology you’re able to change/improve through specific training means.

Now that we understand how a physiological profile can benefit you and your athletes, let’s look at the testing protocols and why we’re using them.

The Testing Protocol

The physiological profile I’ve been performing with endurance athletes, CrossFit athletes, and combat athletes alike consists of three main parts that each serve a specific purpose.

• • The critical power test provides us with performance metrics and helps calibrate the step test. It also informs us on the athlete’s athletic profile (endurant vs. powerful).

 

• • The spirometry test gives us the athlete’s respiratory capacity.

 

• And finally, the 4-1 step test is where most of the physiological data is collected to create the athlete’s full physiological profile.

Now let’s look at each of these in more detail.

Critical Power, or the Power-Duration Relationship

The athlete does this first part autonomously before meeting with me. This helps us establish some performance metrics, informs us of the athlete’s athletic profile, and calibrates the longer step test where most physiological measurements will take place.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the notion of critical power, it’s the intensity above which you can no longer maintain your metabolic homeostasis (or internal balance). That is not to say that no fatigue is experienced below critical power, but once you cross that “threshold,” the effort simply elicits a different kind of fatigue.

To learn more about critical power, I recommend this fantastic video by Mark Burnley.

Critical power will usually be close to your best 30-minute to 60-minute power on a bike or 10k pace on a run (in which case we call it critical speed).

To find that critical power, I use a 3-minute and a 12-minute test performed on separate days, as described in this research paper. (The equivalent test for running is a 1200-meter and a 3600-meter effort done for time, as described here.)

The reason I’ve decided to use this method is simple: It’s easy to apply, and everyone can do it with virtually no equipment. If we want to increase the accuracy of the method, we can get the athlete to perform those same tests a few days later, which will help them express their full potential through better pacing. But since the primary role of this stage is to ESTIMATE critical power and calibrate the step test, I usually stick with one trial on each effort the first time around.

Once the athlete has completed their 3-minute and 12-minute efforts (or 1200-meter and 3600-meter efforts for a running test), we can calculate their critical power and W’ using their average watts at each effort.

W’ is a fixed amount of work (expressed in Joules or kJ) that one can perform above critical power. Think of it as a savings account. Below critical power, internal homeostasis is maintained (the checking account is doing its job), and the savings account isn’t needed. But once we exceed the capacity of the checking account, we have to dip into our savings. That’s W’ in a nutshell.

Image 7. Metabolic reactions above and below critical power. Adapted from Jones et al. (2008).

Knowing an athlete’s W’ can be a precious piece of information to help us plan HIIT and orient training, especially if we have such data for multiple athletes in a given sport. Given that two athletes with similar critical powers can have very different W’ values, this should be reflected in our programming and what we can expect to see in training and competition from each athlete.

So, we’ve now determined the athlete’s critical power and W’ via the 3-minute and 12-minute tests. We have gained some insights into their athletic profile (endurant vs. powerful) and can use the data collected to help us calibrate the step test.

Before we talk about the step test, how it’s built, and how to calibrate it, let’s look at why I also include a spirometry test in my protocol and what this data can add to the global picture.

Spirometry Test

Spirometry is the most common type of pulmonary function test. This test measures how much air the athlete can breathe in and out of their lungs as well as how fast they accomplish this movement.

Since we will be measuring ventilation (or how the athlete breathes) during the step test, we need to have a reference point to interpret this data. Without knowing how much lung capacity the subject possesses, it’s impossible to say whether the way they breathe is optimal or not, let alone determine what should be done about it.

In addition to helping us interpret ventilation data, the spirometry results inform us about the athlete’s lung capacity relative to their size and weight. The app comes with a database built in that enables us to compare the athlete’s data to their corresponding demographic. That way, we know if they are presenting with a respiratory capacity limitation or not.

The 4-1 Step Test

The protocol I use is an intermittent step test composed of four-minute constant load intervals interspersed with one minute of passive rest. The ideal test goes on for 9 to 11 intervals where the athlete reaches task failure at the end of the last step and is unable to start again. Note that I only care about completed intervals for reasons I’ll come back to when discussing data collection.

I settled on four-minute intervals because it’s long enough to allow for all physiological systems to reach a balance while keeping the total test time under one hour.

When we start a constant load effort, it takes between 90 and 120 seconds for the oxygen delivery (respiratory and cardiac) and utilization (metabolic) systems to find their equilibrium. By using four-minute intervals, I’m able to observe what happens to the different metrics collected in the last two minutes of each step in a balanced state.

The minute of rest allows me to take a clean lactate measurement on the athlete while also observing their heart rate and muscle oximetry recovery kinetics.

Back to calibrating the steps.

Calibrating the step test is one of the most critical parts of the system I’m presenting in this article, says @SeanSeale. Share on X

In my opinion, calibrating the step test is one of the most critical parts of the system I’m presenting in this article. Through trial and error, I’ve figured out that setting the eighth step to be equal to the CP value calculated for the athlete at hand usually works quite well. Athletes often complete two steps above their critical power, which lands us right around that “ideal” 10-step mark.

If the test is much shorter than the 10-step target, the gaps between each step might be too big, and the data collected might not give as precise a picture as we hoped. On the flip side, if the test runs for much more than 10 steps, we’re looking at a test that exceeds one hour in length. This would be suboptimal from a logistical standpoint but also in terms of accumulated fatigue for the athlete, who might not be used to these types of efforts.

The starting power of the step test will usually fall around 35% of the athlete’s calculated critical power. When testing on the bike, I also look at relative power (watts per kilogram) to pinpoint the appropriate starting power for each athlete. The spectrum of power on the first step of the test ranges from 0.5 w/kg to 1.5 w/kg, depending on the conditioning level of the athlete I’m testing. Someone completely out of shape will start at 0.5 w/kg, while an elite cyclist would use 1.5 w/kg as their first step power.

When in doubt, I get the athlete to spin on the bike at a low power until their heart rate settles at 100 beats per minute. I then use this power value at the start of the step test.

When performing a running test, I start all non-elite runners at 6–7 km/h.

As you can see, calibration isn’t an exact science, but the general rule of thumb is that the starting power should be on the low end. If we start too high, we will miss some important information about the athlete’s physiology that is pivotal in individualizing and optimizing their training.

I think it’s important to highlight that this is ONE testing protocol available among many others. Each coach needs to find the protocol that makes sense for the data they wish to collect while respecting the constraints within which they operate. Know your protocol’s strengths and weaknesses, and you will always collect better data than if you try just to grab “the best protocol” off the shelf.

Now we know HOW the test will take place. Let’s look at WHAT tools I use to collect physiological data during the 4-1 step test.

Section 3: The Measurement Tools

Over time, I’ve added different tools to my assessment arsenal.

Here, I’ll give an overview of the gear I use, what I like about it, and what kind of limitations I need to be aware of when using it.

Polar H10 Chest Strap

Heart rate data is the most accessible physiological measurement out there, and you should collect it whenever possible. In the context of building the athlete’s complete physiological profile, heart rate is a central metric to assess cardiac function and prescribe training intensities that will correspond to specific internal states.

I’ve been using the Polar H10 with great success for some time now. It’s currently the best HR belt out there relative to its price, and it has a hidden (or seldom-mentioned) feature that enables you to sync it to more than one app at a time. This can be a handy feature.

MIR Spirobank Smart

As I described earlier in the article, using a spirometer is a simple and fast way to assess an athlete’s respiratory capacity. After a couple of trials with other devices, I’ve settled on the MIR Spirobank Smart. This compact tool comes with single-use turbines for better hygiene and safety.

The dedicated mobile app requires you to input your personal information (weight, size, height, origin, etc.) so that it can compare spirometry results to its database.

VO2 Master

The VO2 Master is a fantastic piece of equipment that opens the door to measuring and analyzing ventilation and VO2 in real time without the constraints of bulky lab equipment. The VO2 Master Pro connects directly to its dedicated mobile app via Bluetooth and is calibrated through regular breathing in under two minutes. After that, you can see breath-by-breath data of oxygen consumption, respiratory frequency, and tidal volume (volume of air per breath) streamed through the app.

As mentioned in the spirometry section, knowing how someone breathes at different intensities and relative to their lung capacity helps us give specific recommendations where appropriate.

VO2 is a measure of how much oxygen the body absorbs, transports, and utilizes per unit of time. This allows us to calculate an athlete’s economy (“cost of effort”) and also determine the percentage of VO2 that is being utilized at each threshold (called fractional utilization).

VO2 measurements can also be combined with ventilation data to help pinpoint ventilatory thresholds, which we will discuss in the following section.

One weakness of the current VO2 Master unit is that it does not (yet) possess a CO2 sensor. Expired CO2 provides important information regarding substrate utilization (fats vs. carbs) as well as additional information regarding respiratory thresholds. This feature is being worked on as I write this blog post, and it is much anticipated for future testing.

Moxy Monitor

The Moxy Monitor is a NIRS device. NIRS stands for near-infrared spectroscopy, which measures the balance between oxygen delivery and oxygen utilization at the level of the muscle capillaries. This tool can be used to measure muscle oxygen saturation locally (when placed on a locomotor muscle) as well as systemically (when placed on a non-involved muscle).

When testing athletes on a bike, I often place a Moxy on each vastus lateralis (locomotor muscle group) and a Moxy on each shoulder (non-involved muscle group). For runners, the rectus femoris and the forearms are usually a great choice.

Moxy data trends show some interesting correlations with lactate and ventilation/VO2 data regarding threshold determination. More on that in the next section of the article.

A current weakness of the Moxy Monitor (along with other NIRS devices in the context of exercise physiology) is the lack of consensus surrounding the interpretation of the data collected. Although there are some exciting papers and projects in the works, more collaboration between the protagonists in this field needs to take place for a more practical application of the data to emerge.

Lactate Scout 4

The Lactate Scout 4 is a lactate analyzer. This tool measures blood lactate concentration (BLa) via a small droplet of blood taken from the athlete’s earlobe or finger, in this case, at the end of each work interval.

Contrary to common belief, lactate is not a harmful by-product of metabolism but an important fuel source and signaling molecule for the human body. An excellent summary of our current understanding of lactate can be found in this paper.

Blood lactate is the difference between the lactate produced by the body through glycolysis and the lactate recycled by our mitochondria. BLa does not give us any information on lactate production or clearance rates.

The weaknesses of lactate measurements reside primarily in the measurement procedure itself, as each blood droplet can be contaminated by sweat or skin tissue. This usually results in a BLa value much higher than expected. Another drawback of this method is the numerous interpretation methods that exist to analyze a lactate curve. This will become rather clear in the next section of this article.

Image 14. Lactate curve with possible interpretations from ExPhysLab.com.

Rating of Perceived Exertion

Despite the subjective nature of RPE, I believe it to be one of the most important metrics that a coach can collect during a training session test. As exemplified by Alex Hutchinson in his fantastic book Endure, effort perception might well be one of the most essential factors in sports performance, especially in events and disciplines practiced over longer time domains.

Despite the subjective nature of RPE, I believe it to be one of the most important metrics that a coach can collect during a training session test, says @SeanSeale. Share on X

I use a simple 1 through 10 RPE scale that includes descriptions of effort perception and respiratory status (inspired by Daniel Crumback’s work) to guide the athlete in choosing the rating that matches their sensations. It’s also a good add-on since some athletes have difficulty “listening to themselves.”

Now let’s look at what I do with the data we collect using the above tools.

Section 4: Interpreting Test Results

Once the athlete has completed the tests, it’s time to look at the collected data and, more importantly, interpret it.

From experience, I can tell you that the last thing athletes and coaches want following a physiological test is a bunch of raw data thrown at them. Instead, what they want (and what they should get) is actionable information to help them individualize, optimize, and orient training in the best way possible.

The data interpretation process is pivotal to bridging the gap between the “lab” and the “field.” Here’s how I proceed through it.

Thresholds and Intensity Distribution Interpretation

As we’ve seen in section 1, it’s important to determine an athlete’s individual intensity profile if we want the training to be practical and match the athlete’s current abilities. To do so, we have multiple data sets and methods of analysis at our disposal to define thresholds and break up the intensity spectrum into distinct domains.

What I do first is look at each data set independently from the others and figure out where the inflection points (or thresholds) are.

For lactate, I’ll use the Bsn+0.5 method for threshold 1 and the Modified DMax method for threshold 2. A great tool for this is ExPhysLab.com.

For VO2 and ventilation, I look for inflection points in their relationship, as shown below, and match them up with the correct intensities.

For the Moxy Monitor data, I look for distinct changes in trends from step to step. I also look at the non-involved muscles and how the oxygen trend behaves, which can often inform me about intensities taking place above threshold 2.

I also consider the critical power calculation as a reference for the second threshold.

Once I’ve looked at the different data points cited above, I draw my interpretation of threshold 1 and threshold 2 relative to power, heart rate, and percentage of VO2max for that athlete.

This intensity distribution profile is then cut up further into training zones to render the information as practical as possible for both the coach and the athlete.

Some might say I should stick to one metric—for example, blood lactate—and base all my interpretations on this metric alone. I think it’s a valid criticism of my approach. But at this stage, I wish not to “pick a side” or a method and simply try and make the best interpretation possible from a holistic point of view.

Physiological thresholds are NOT fixed points on the intensity spectrum; they are transition zones (not linked to training zones) where the body shifts from one internal state to another. Share on X

I’ll state it again: physiological thresholds are NOT fixed points on the intensity spectrum. Instead, they are transition zones (not linked to training zones) where the body shifts from one internal state to another. All thresholds (lactate, ventilation, etc.) do not always line up with each other, and there can even be significant differences between two methods that are supposed to illustrate the same thing (MLSS vs. critical power, for example).

This is why it’s essential to keep the big picture in mind. We also don’t want to get lost in the details—we want actionable information for the coaches and athletes we work with.

Regardless of the method(s) I choose, what remains important is to record all the interpretations I make on each system or metric available so that I can compare those interpretations at a later date after a retest. That way, even though my global interpretation might not be based on a single data point, I still know what each method “tells me” and can accurately compare it when future tests are performed.

Interpreting Heart Rate Data

As I stated earlier, heart rate is a very accessible physiological metric that should be used to inform conditioning training whenever possible.

In the case of this 4-1 step test, I average the last minute of each stage and use this value as a reference for the corresponding power output.

I also look at how fast the heart recovered during the fixed one-minute rest intervals. This can be compared in future tests.

Interpreting VO2 Data

The advantage of the VO2 Master is that it provides you with the breath-by-breath raw data that was collected. The disadvantage of the VO2 Master is that it provides you with the breath-by-breath raw data that was collected.

Let me explain…

In the world of sports technology, different companies operate in different ways when it comes to the data that their devices collect. Sometimes, you get some very actionable information but have no idea what was done to the data. Was it smoothed? How was it interpreted? What algorithms were applied? How did they deal with noise/artifacts/missing data? Who knows…

Other times, you get the raw data and have to figure out what to do with it yourself.

There obviously exists a spectrum between those two “extremes,” but it’s essential to understand what you’re dealing with to make informed decisions about the data you collect.

Personally, I like the raw data. It’s more work to process, but at least you know exactly what went into your model, what analytics you applied, and what you got out on the other side. You have complete control through and through. If you want to change the way you analyze a data stream, you can do so and re-run all your prior data through that new filter. You can’t do that when all you have is the final output.

So back to the VO2 Master data.

Before I look at the numbers, I apply a 30-second rolling average to the data set. This helps offset any significant second-to-second variations because of the breath-by-breath measurement.

As with other metrics, I then take the average value on the last 60 seconds of each work interval as my reference value for the corresponding power.

The highest VO2 value expressed during the test is called VO2peak.

Going back to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your approach, it’s important to point out that this longer test with four-minute stages will tend to underestimate an athlete’s VO2max relative to what could be measured on a short, 9- to 12-minute step test with no breaks.

To make it easier to grasp, we can say that VO2peak is specific to the protocol that was used to achieve it. Researchers have shown that different maximal VO2 values can be elicited in the same individual by changing the test’s duration, structure, and intensity. So as long as we only compare values coming from the same testing protocol, in the same conditions, and using the same measurement devices, we can have a high degree of confidence in our analysis.

Since I work with different athletic profiles (CrossFitters, combat sports athletes, endurance athletes, etc.) across many levels, I see a wide range of VO2peak values on those tests. I’m starting to see trends and know what to expect for each category of athlete, but it wouldn’t be wise, in my opinion, to compare the VO2peak of a fighter to that of a cyclist, even if they both performed their tests on a bike.

In the case of a cyclist, I would like to see a high VO2 value in the last stage, which would be a good indicator of performance potential. But for a fighter, since there isn’t a strong correlation between VO2peak on a bike and sports performance, I might instead want to see a large enough value to allow for sufficient work capacity overall.

That said, VO2peak is not necessarily the most interesting metric related to oxygen uptake.

Some might argue that it’s even more interesting to look at the percentage of VO2peak that is manifested at each threshold. Relative VO2 at thresholds 1 and 2 are important fitness metrics that can help guide and individualize the training process for each athlete relative to their needs.

These values should be tracked and will help us assess an athlete’s progress over time. Think of this as a “how many reps can I do at 80% of my 1RM squat” equivalent for endurance sports. In the endurance world, the higher the percentage of VO2peak you express at each threshold, the better.

Now that we’ve looked at VO2peak and fractional VO2, let’s look at spirometry and ventilation data.

Spirometry Results

There are three main metrics of interest provided by any standard spirometer: FVC6, FEV1, and FEV1/FVC6.

FVC6 stands for Forced Vital Capacity in six seconds. It is expressed in liters (L) and tells us “how much space” the athlete has available in their lungs. In short, their respiratory capacity.

FEV1 stands for Forced Expiratory Volume in the first second of the exhale. It is also expressed in liters, giving us a measure of expiratory power (thanks to Daniel Crumback for that term).

FEV1/FVC6 is the ratio between those two values (expressed in %) and gives us an idea of how one compares to the other. Is your capacity low relative to your expiratory power? Or vice versa?

The results are then compared to the standard tables. For athletes, I like to see FVC and FEV above 110% of the predicted norm. For non-athletic clients, 100% works well as a separator between “good” and “not good enough.”

While respiratory training falls outside the scope of this article, there are definitely some interesting interventions and tools that can be used to address respiratory capacity limitations.

Next, let’s link respiratory capacity to respiratory coordination. Here, we want to assess whether the athlete is actually using their capacity effectively. To do so, I calculate 80% of the athlete’s measured FEV1 score. This is the volume that they should theoretically be able to “move” with each breath during a dynamic effort.

For example, if my FEV1 is 5L, I should manage to get 4 liters of air in and out of my lungs with each breath during the step test. With this, I can now look at the ventilation data collected and assess whether the breathing performed was optimal or not.

Ventilation Data

Ventilation from the VO2 Master provides us with two direct measurements and one calculated value: respiratory frequency (RF) expressed in breaths per minute, tidal volume (VT) expressed in liters, and ventilatory exchange (VE) expressed in liters per minute, respectively.

Since we don’t often speak of those values, we can draw a simple parallel with the heart.

Respiratory frequency is the equivalent of heart rate, tidal volume is the equivalent of stroke volume, and ventilatory exchange is the equivalent of cardiac output.

Throughout the step test, we should see a progressive increase in respiratory frequency (to match the intensity) while VT stays relatively high and constant, close to that 80% FEV1 mark I mentioned earlier.

There are multiple reasons I like to see this pattern of breathing.

Breathing Deep and Slow

First, breathing high tidal volumes allows the lungs to be completely filled with fresh air through each breath cycle. Compared to shallow breathing, this means that we can increase the exchange surface between the alveoli and the capillaries, where the oxygen passes into the bloodstream.

Second, high tidal volume breathing requires optimal diaphragmatic excursion (or range of motion). In almost all cases, this should be prioritized over “thoracic breathing,” which mainly recruits accessory breathing muscles. These are nowhere near as powerful or enduring as the diaphragm.

And lastly, breathing deeply and slowly will tend to increase CO2 retention. So, each minute, less CO2 is expelled, and the CO2 levels inside the body increase slightly.

The effect this has is very interesting.

In short, more CO2 retention means that your hemoglobin becomes less “sticky” to oxygen. In that way, the unloading of oxygen at the muscle (in the capillaries) is facilitated, and a higher fraction of the oxygen entering the body is actually utilized.

We know that O2 availability in the muscle directly influences substrate utilization. It has been recently discovered that oxymyoglobin (or myoglobin bound to oxygen) facilitates the transport and oxidation of fatty acids. Maybe something to explore regarding breathing efficiency?

Lastly, it’s important to realize that respiratory frequency is tightly linked to our rating of perceived exertion. By controlling one’s breathing and slowing it down, not only will you experience the benefits listed above, but you will also make your efforts FEEL easier.

It’s important to realize that respiratory frequency is tightly linked to our RPE. By controlling and slowing down our breathing, we will make our efforts FEEL easier, says @SeanSeale. Share on X

As we know, our perception IS our reality. So why not make our reality during exercise just a little bit less painful than it actually is by breathing slower and deeper?

Respiratory Coordination

Sometimes, the athlete can maintain tidal volume at lower intensities but loses coordination at higher intensities.

When an athlete presents with a respiratory pattern that deviates significantly from the expected standards I outlined above, I take it as an opportunity to open up a conversation with them about how they breathe, how they feel relative to their breath during exercise, and what can potentially be done to improve their awareness, control, and/or coordination.

I often recommend that athletes work with a respiratory training tool such as the Breathe Way Better to improve their movement (or “breathing technique,” if you will), their coordination (maintaining VT at all intensities), and their endurance.

Image 24. Ironman U24 2022 World Champion Jameson Plewes training with the Breathe Way Better.

Now that we’ve looked at both spirometry and ventilation, let’s do a quick overview of what we can expect from muscle oximetry data provided by the Moxy Monitor (or any other NIRS device).

Muscle Oximetry Data

The Moxy Monitor provides us with two metrics: SmO2 and THb. We will focus on SmO2 today, which stands for muscle oxygen saturation.

SmO2 is expressed on a 0 to 100% scale and indicates the balance between oxygen delivery and utilization. The absolute numbers are influenced by adipose tissue thickness, so it’s best to focus on trends rather than the numbers themselves. In short, is the trend going up, staying stable, or going down? And how is that changing over the course of the test?

As I mentioned above, I use the Moxy data mainly to pinpoint my threshold 1 and threshold 2. When I test sports other than cycling or running, it’s also a good opportunity to analyze specific task demands and see what muscle groups are involved and to what degree.

Now that we’ve looked at how I interpret the data collected, here’s an example of the test report I provide to both coaches and athletes.

We’ve seen the results and how I communicate them to athletes and coaches, so let’s look at how I orient the programming for different athletes and needs.

Building the Training Plan

This is where the rubber meets the road. Test results are great, but if you don’t know what to do with them, they won’t be much use to you or the athletes you’re working with.

How to Set Training Priorities 

“What should we do next” is always the big question following a test of any kind.

To answer, we need more information than what the test alone can provide.

To determine what we should do next, we need more information than what the test can provide. That’s why I always send athletes a questionnaire to fill out before our testing session, says @SeanSeale. Share on X

That’s why I always send athletes a questionnaire to fill out before our testing session. The information that will help me strengthen my decision-making process regarding the planification of training includes:

• What are the athlete’s perceived strengths?
• What are the athlete’s perceived weaknesses?
• What sport do they compete in?
• When is their next competitive event taking place?
• How much time do they dedicate to training each week?
• How do they distribute their training intensity across sessions?
• What type of conditioning training have they been doing recently?
• What type of conditioning training have they not done in a while (>3 months)?

With these questions answered, I already have a good idea of what the athlete will NEED next, regardless of their test results (that might be less true for elite athletes who have already been following a well-thought-out and balanced training plan for years).

Just as I did when interpreting the thresholds earlier, I’ll look first at what their questionnaire says and second at what their physiological profile indicates. Then, I can cross-reference the two to decide what training intervention they should go through next.

Programming Conditioning Training for CrossFit Athletes

Since this is the primary demographic I currently work with, I’ll focus on CrossFit athletes for a moment as an example.

The sport itself (or at least the way in which most competitive CrossFit events are currently built) centers around a time domain between about 3 minutes and 20 minutes of intense effort. This usually involves different movement patterns and exercises organized in varying ways from event to event.

If we leave aside max strength/weightlifting lifts and pure gymnastic events, this means that, from a cardiovascular and metabolic standpoint, CrossFit LIVES in the upper Heavy and Severe domains (or in zones 4 and 5).

And it turns out that the conditioning training performed by most CrossFit competitors also falls in that time domain and intensity range.

So naturally, those athletes will greatly benefit from exploring training intensities and durations that they don’t use much (if at all).

As Alex Hutchinson said in a podcast I recorded with him, “the best stimulus is the one you never had.” I would add “and/or the one you haven’t had in a while.”

Video 1. Upside Strength podcast with Alex Hutchinson.

Put simply, if there are gaps in your conditioning that need to be filled, you will do well to work on those first. A training intensity you haven’t worked on in a long time (or ever) is bound to yield significant returns in the early stages of training without requiring too much volume to achieve it.

In line with that thinking, I often program some longer efforts for CrossFitters who are deficient in this area (tempo + threshold training). For those who display a real lack of power or intensity tolerance, sprint interval training (both short and long sprints) can be a potent and beneficial intervention.

The intensities are obviously individualized based on the test results and feedback on the first few sessions via heart rate and RPE monitoring, allowing us to make sure they are training at the intensities that we wanted to target in the first place.

Another staple absent from most CrossFitters’ training plans is low-intensity continuous training, also called “Zone 2” training. As a brief reminder, zone 2 is located below the first threshold and is characterized by low blood lactate levels (usually close or equal to resting levels), very easy breathing, and a parasympathetic-dominant state. This low-intensity training serves as the BASE for all the higher intensities expressed in training and competition.

Some common feedback I get from athletes who start including this type of training in their weekly training:

• Better sleep.
• Better recovery between sessions.
• Better recovery between work sets.
• Better tolerance of overall training volume/intensity.
• Better intensity performance.

Those adaptations usually take 8–12 weeks to manifest themselves with as little as one to two hours of Zone 2 training per week.

Tracking Progress over Time

After the training block is completed (usually between 8 and 16 weeks later), it’s time to assess the athlete’s progress.

Some might come back from a complete profile immediately, although there are ways to quantify their evolution without needing all the measurement tools.

I’ll then have the athlete redo their 3-minute and 12-minute efforts and recalculate their critical power. From there, they can also do the step test again while just measuring heart rate and RPE. I can then compare their HR and RPE data to what I had initially collected to detect meaningful changes in their intensity profile and adjust the following training sessions accordingly.

Case Studies

Here are a few examples of the progress different athletes have achieved following these ideas and training interventions.

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

“What is the most effective way to make an athlete more powerful?” This was the question that sparked the idea to conduct a case study among our male multisport high school athletes. We chose to compare two methods that both fall under the “dynamic effort” umbrella. The first was a more traditional means of training for power, using bands for accommodating resistance. The second method was a more novel training method, launching the bar using a self-spotting rack called the XPT half rack. (Check out a full review of the XPT here.)

These two methods allowed us to program the same movements with the same volume of sets and reps, as opposed to other methods (such as contrast training) that would make it more difficult to ensure equivalent volume between groups. We also chose not to use any Olympic lifts or their derivatives since they are different movements altogether.

The question ‘what is the most effective way to make an athlete more powerful?’ sparked the idea to conduct this case study on two dynamic effort methods of training, says @Brandon_L_Pigg. Share on X

When discussing training methods, it is difficult to truly say one is better than the other. There is always an argument from silence that even if you saw better results using one set of methods one year than you did with other techniques in previous years, you cannot say that one is definitively better than the other since other external factors may have influenced the outcomes.

This problem is the foundation of all research. It is also why we wanted to conduct this case study and see which method would yield better results when all other external factors were equal. While this case study does not meet the standards of peer-reviewed literature—as I will discuss in the methods section below—it does show reasonable expectations for results between the two methods.

It should be noted that while the overall format of this article will be similar to that of a peer-reviewed research paper, I am leaving room to inject my own opinions and experiences alongside the data since this was an informal, in-house case study.

Background

With the increased accessibility to technology that allows for velocity-based training (with devices such as the Vmaxpro and GymAware), many coaches have begun to pay closer attention to dynamic effort training methods. Training for power typically involves:

• Moving a lighter load fast, with or without accommodating resistance like bands or chains.
• Ballistic methods with lighter implements such as medicine balls or weighted balls.
• The use of weightlifting movements and their variations.

Some heavier ballistic methods are also common, such as a barbell jump squat or trap bar jump. Of the two, the trap bar jump is probably preferable because the barbell squat jump has a component of dynamic spinal loading during the landing. There also aren’t any common means for upper-body ballistic barbell movements. While heavier ballistic methods were previously limited in number, accommodating resistance has historically been a popular option due to its association with Westside Barbell and its low-cost barrier to entry.

One of the main proposed benefits of using the XPT trainer: you can accelerate throughout the entire range of motion and ballistically launch the bar instead of slowing it down, says @Brandon_L_Pigg. Share on X

While accommodating resistance has shown solid results for barbell lifts, some coaches feel that since you have to eventually decelerate at the end range of motion of the lift, you are actually teaching the brain to do the opposite of what it does during natural movements like sprinting or jumping. This is one of the main proposed benefits of using the XPT trainer: you can accelerate throughout the entire range of motion and ballistically launch the bar instead of slowing it down. If you would like to read more about what training with the XPT looks like, you can view some demonstrations here.

Methods

Recruitment and Selection

This is one area where we deviated from standard research operating procedures. Under normal circumstances, participants would have shown interest after being recruited and joined the study at their own discretion. Groups would have either been completely randomized, or they would have been formed so that, after pre-testing, the average metrics between both groups would be similar.

As a former research assistant, I fully understand the need for randomization to avoid bias or juicing one group’s results over the other. As a high school strength and conditioning coach, I’ll plead my argument for why we didn’t do this.

Under normal research circumstances, participants in a study like this would be recreational athletes at best and, at worst, couch potatoes who knew you needed more participants. This allows the researchers to set standards that any exercise or training during the duration of the study should be limited to, or non-conflicting with, the training done within the training intervention sessions. With high school athletes, this is not the case. As for recruitment, it’s hard to set exclusion criteria that say, “Naw, bruh, we can’t trust you.”

In the high school setting, the bandwidth of maturity has a wide span. We chose to hand-select 14 male athletes who had multiple years of training experience and whom we felt were all capable of completing the study with good effort and good attendance. Instead of randomizing them, we chose to separate them so that both groups had an equal number of athletes in in-season sports, off-season sports, or preparing for college athletics. While we could have tagged each of them with one of the variables and randomized from there, we chose hand selection because the athletes trained during different class times, and we wanted to ensure there was enough rack availability for each class. Not being able to limit these extracurriculars was a limitation of this case study, but balancing each group was the closest we could come to washing these variables out.

Pre- and Post-Testing

Both pre-testing and post-testing were conducted on the XPT half rack using a Vmaxpro to capture bar speed metrics. The metrics collected for analysis were peak power, average power, peak velocity, and average velocity. Metrics were collected on a bench press launch at 40% and 60% of bench press one rep max (1RM) and on a box squat launch with 60% of back squat 1RM. Percentages were selected to be between the traditionally accepted peak power range of 40% and 60% 1RM. The pre-testing was conducted after one week of familiarization with launching the bar on both bench presses and box squat jumps.

In testing, each participant completed two repetitions (reps) of the bench press launch at 60%, followed by two reps of the bench press launch at 40%, and then finally two reps of the box squat launch at 60% 1RM. As each rep was completed, I collected results on a data sheet for each subject (figure 1).

Intervention Design

Each group trained in class as usual (twice a week for 60 minutes). Lifting sessions were conducted after a dynamic warm-up, resisted sprints, medicine ball throws, hurdle hops, and three 15-yard sprints, which was the training format for the preceding five months leading up to the study. Both groups were given a one-week introductory period before pre-testing. This allowed the athletes to familiarize themselves with the XPT and what it feels like to actually launch a barbell on a bench press or squat.

This familiarization period was essential, as some athletes were initially tentative and needed time to trust the machine. The banded group always used a red Westside Barbell band anchored, so the bench press was approximately 60 pounds higher than the bar weight at the top, and lower-body movements were around 100 pounds higher than the bar weight at the top. Individual differences may have occurred due to height or limb length.

The lifting protocols for each group were as follows (sets and reps are listed as sets x reps):

Banded Group

Day One:

Banded Bench Press

• 40% Bench Press 1RM 3 x 3

Banded Box Squat

• 40% Back Squat 1RM 3 x 3

Chin-ups

• Body weight 2 x 2–3 reps in reserve

Landmine RDL with Viking Press attachment

• 8–12 reps with two 45-pound plates loaded on the bar

Day Two:

Banded Bench Press

• 60% Bench Press 1RM 3 x 3

Banded Split Squat

• 40% Back Squat 1RM 3 x 3

TRX Rows

• Body weight 2 x 8–12 reps

Dumbbell RDL

• Weight that allows 2 x 6–8 reps for each leg with 2–3 reps in reserve

XPT Group

Day One:

Bench Press Launch

• 60% Bench Press 1RM 3 x 3

Split Squat Launch

• 60% Back Squat 1RM 3 x 3

TRX Rows

• Body weight 2 x 8–12 reps

Dumbbell RDL

• Weight that allows 2 x 6–8 reps for each leg with 2–3 reps in reserve

Day Two:

Bench Press Launch

• 45% Bench Press 1RM 3 x 3

Box Squat Launch

• 45% Back Squat 1RM 3 x 3

Chin-ups

• Body weight 2 x 2–3 reps in reserve

Landmine RDL with Viking Press attachment

• 8–12 reps with two 45-pound plates loaded on the bar

For the XPT group, percentages were selected to match the average velocity of banded movements using pilot data conducted with the Vmaxpro. These two days were repeated using the same loads for the duration of the study, which was four weeks long.

Exclusion Criteria and Dropouts

The criteria for being excluded from the study without completion were as follows:

• Poor attendance resulting in fewer than six completed sessions over the four weeks of training.
• Injury.

Each group began the intervention with seven subjects. Three subjects were excluded from post-testing due to attendance, one was excluded for an injury, and one dropped out due to a college strength coach requesting he start doing a new workout program in class. This left the Banded group with five participants who completed post-testing and the XPT group with four participants who completed post-testing.

Statistical Analysis

P-values were calculated using Google Sheets’ T-Test function. We used a paired samples t-test. This is input with the function =TTEST(Range 1,Range 2,2,1). Range 1 is the pre-test values; range 2 is the post-test values; the “2” means it is a two-tailed test; and the “1” selects a paired samples t-test.

Results

The results were as follows. Power metrics are reported in watts. Velocity metrics are recorded in meters per second. Statistically significant measures (p-value < 0.05) are highlighted in yellow.

Statistical Significance

Percent Change Pre/Post

Discussion

The results were a tale of two different beasts. Both groups saw solid improvements in some or all bench metrics. Neither group saw meaningful improvements in the box squat metrics. While only six total metrics had a p-value < 0.05 across both groups, I would focus on percent changes from pre/post.

Given that these athletes completed 6–8 sessions, seeing changes of this magnitude in the timeframe equivalent of a single block of training is quite impressive, says @Brandon_L_Pigg. Share on X

Looking at the percent changes, I think any reasonable strength coach would say that the XPT group saw meaningful improvements in all metrics for the bench press, and the Banded group saw significant improvements in average metrics for the bench press. On each of the metrics, the XPT group had between a 25.54% and 48.79% change in both the 40% and 60% 1RM bench press launch. While the Banded group did not do nearly as well in peak metrics for the bench press, it saw impressive jumps in the average categories with percent changes between 26.03% and 56.69%. Given that these athletes completed between six and eight sessions, seeing changes of this magnitude in the timeframe equivalent of a single block of training is quite impressive.

As for the box squat launch, the XPT group effectively saw no difference aside from average power, and the Banded group saw small changes in power. There are a few potential reasons for this discrepancy between the bench and squat results. As a whole, the previous training probably develops lower body power more so than upper body power. The only real upper body power work we did in previous blocks was medball work and landmine jerks. With all the sprinting, resisted sprinting, and jumping we do, there was likely just less room to develop lower body power than there was for upper body power.

As to why I think the XPT group performed worse on the squat compared to the Banded group, I think it may have been in part to some of the kids having experience with the rack. The half rack is not as tall as the full rack version of the XPT rack. You have about 6 feet of space from top to bottom, which leads to the bar smacking the top of the rack on any type of jump with a bar on your back or in a rack position.

There were also a handful of incidents where kids just locked up and death-gripped the bar, preventing the catching mechanism from engaging and letting the bar freefall after the jump. I believe this could have resulted in some hesitancy to go all-out in both training and post-testing. I think this issue is easily avoided with the full rack.

The XPT brand is also in the process of releasing adaptor kits that can fit onto common brands of power racks, allowing you to have self-spotting capabilities on your current racks. Given the XPT group’s results in the bench press, I would have definitely liked to have conducted the study on one of these taller models to test if my hypothesis of hesitancy is correct.

Future case studies should potentially consider having a Banded XPT group to see how adding accommodating resistance to a ballistic launch could impact testing outcomes. It should also be noted that the brake handles on the XPT increase the diameter of the bar by about 0.5 inches. To equate this, the banded group should use an equivalently sized Fat Gripz-type device on all upper body lifts to tease out any effects that could come from a different bar size.

Given the large response on bench press metrics, it could also be worthwhile to run an initial block using neither ballistic nor accommodating methods. This would provide measures to eliminate any murkiness as to whether or not previous programming simply failed to address upper or lower body power and left a higher or lower ceiling for development.

While this is just pilot data in a small cohort of participants, I believe there are a few practical takeaways. First, each coach should occasionally perform a SWOT analysis of their weight room and what they are and aren’t able to train. (A SWOT analysis means to look for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that all need to be addressed.) My approach to programming is to always attempt to invest time in exercises that will give the athletes the biggest return on their effort investment. Your time, space, equipment, and other logistical restraints will always determine much of what you can do, but this is why the SWOT analysis is so critical for each coach to perform instead of copying and pasting another coach or program’s training.

As I mentioned, since we performed sprints and resisted sprints year-round, our lower body power may have already been one of our strengths. While medicine ball training and landmine jerks are great for a number of reasons, it is clear that there was a significant opportunity to improve vertical pressing power in our athletes.

SWOT analysis is so critical for each coach to perform instead of copying and pasting another coach or program’s training, says @Brandon_L_Pigg. Share on X

I have moved on to a new school this current school year, which has impacted my programming. We do not have Exer-genies or other means of performing resisted sprints on our speed days. This means that there may be an opportunity and need to increase lower body power through other means, so we have incorporated more speed squats, split squat jumps, trap bar jumps, and trap bar speed pulls in our training.

Recognizing that upper body horizontal pressing power was already a big opportunity in the previous setting, I suspect it will be even more so at my new school. We do not have bands or a good space to throw medicine balls, so speed bench and more frequent jerk/push press variations have been integrated into our training. Those programming methods reflect the restraints of our program.

Some methods may be more efficient at yielding results than others, and acquiring the means to perform them should impact how you budget and allocate funds once you’ve identified weaknesses, opportunities, or threats to your current programming. This is an ever-evolving process for all coaches, and I hope case studies like this one will help us all grow in that process.

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

Every ambitious trainer seeks to maximize athlete adaptation within a given training period. There is no crystal ball that reveals exactly which stimuli an athlete needs to reach their true potential, but the pursuit of such understanding is our great endeavor, and coaches will never stop trying to determine which interventions to implement to get the most from training.

Several athlete-profiling techniques have emerged in response to this quest, such as force-velocity profiling, load-velocity profiling, and more. These assessments are valuable, but the trouble is that most practitioners rely solely on one or two of these profiles to guide training.

Indeed, a profile is just that: a profile. Police create a criminal profile with facts about the perp—like height, weight, crime committed, etc.—but that doesn’t tell them where to search or how to capture the target.

Profiles are not inherently descriptive of what to do next: they are simply a snapshot of the current state of existence of a specific performance factor, like jumping, sprinting, or even basic biometrics. To truly have a sense of what an athlete needs to develop maximally in the coming training cycle, we must analyze and understand several layers via broad and encompassing data collection. Such an audit consists of several performance factors, including—but standing distinct from—siloed profiles.

The beauty of data is that it tells a story. The challenge is deciphering what that story is and how we interpret it to benefit the individual for whom it is told.

Athlete auditing captures this story and allows strength coaches to write the next pages.

Those who adapt and use auditing will ride the wave of athlete improvement and rise to the top of the field. The rest will be left “testing” to determine progress. They will miss out on the insights to be gleaned and the practical applications to be realized from assembling a holistic athlete audit.

Athlete Auditing: The Next Wave of Assessment

Knowing an athlete has poor initial acceleration is a great start. But coupling that knowledge with the understanding that they have insufficient ankle stiffness, adequate hip strength, subpar plantarflexion power, and a poor broad jump arms you with a more complete picture of why their initial acceleration is below standard and what to do about it.

Strength and performance coaches have been testing athletes for ages. Testing provides a snapshot of performance and isn’t without value, but beyond simply showing changes from the previous test period, there is not much to be gleaned from a vertical jump or fly run score in isolation. That data doesn’t reveal what the athlete’s training needs are from there.

Testing provides a snapshot of performance and isn’t without value, but the data doesn’t reveal what the athlete’s training needs are from there. Auditing bridges that gap, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

Auditing bridges that gap. It demonstrates strengths, weaknesses, and connections between physical qualities and performance outcomes like sprint speeds, kinematics, and jump height. More importantly, auditing generates insights into how and why an athlete does or does not perform well, highlighting low-hanging fruit and weak links that can be addressed in training.

Indeed, understanding the factors that produce the major KPIs, like sprint speed and jump height, is critical for improving these KPIs.

Advanced practitioners have evolved and are asking advanced questions: Why do these athletes perform (or not perform) well in these areas? What stimuli do they need to improve most? What training methods can I employ to deliver such stimuli? 

Athlete auditing enables coaches to answer these questions confidently, directing training and maximizing results. Particularly for those working in the team setting, not compiling complete, holistic athlete audits is a lost opportunity.

Auditing is here to stay, and it will only grow in depth, application, and efficacy. In this article, I propose a framework for constructing a working athlete audit.

Audit Considerations: What Contributes to Performance?

When considering how to construct an audit, the guiding question should be, “what qualities contribute to athletic performance?” This will vary from sport to sport and position to position, as an offensive lineman has different KPIs than a wideout, but there are certain commonalities among sports.

When considering how to construct an audit, the guiding question should be ‘what qualities contribute to athletic performance?’, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

It is worth noting that assessments do not need to look like or resemble the sport itself to be relevant. Rather, an assessment aims to quantify a quality that transfers to sports performance. Where many test options exist to quantify a single quality, it is wise to choose those that resemble the sport the closest (a running versus swimming repeat sprint test for soccer players, for example). The age-old argument of “my athletes never do X, Y, or Z on the field, so why test it?” is not a valid position.

The goal of an audit is to build a holistic composition of the critical factors that influence sport performance. Matt Van Dyke proposed six qualities that encapsulate the energy and force production systems, providing a solid framework for physical performance. From a big-picture perspective, we can classify physical contributors as follows:

• Strength
• Power
• Speed
• Endurance

Each quality is composed of subcategories that together constitute the overarching theme. For instance, endurance can be separated into aerobic and anaerobic components, and those can be further broken down into subcategories of their own.

The goal of an audit is to build a holistic composition of the critical factors that influence sport performance, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

Each subcategory is fair game to be assessed. When deciding whether to assess the quality, you must weigh the time involved, its relevance to sports performance, and the potential payoff from improving the quality if it is lacking. Certainly, not everything that can be included should be.

Nonetheless, practitioners should seek to quantify these outputs directly, as well as their relevant constituents, to tell the story of how performance in the major KPIs is achieved in the first place.

Further, we must recognize that physical qualities underpin technical components of sports actions. This becomes immediately recognizable when working with youth athletes who don’t yet have much strength at their disposal. They simply can’t hit the archetypal sprint kinematic postures because they don’t have the strength and power to do so. Maintaining a relatively neutral pelvis at max speed and achieving an elegant negative step are perhaps two of the more challenging sprint tasks—at least two of those which require a great deal of strength to achieve.

Assessment Considerations

Below is a basic list of “non-negotiables” that should be assessed in field and court sports athletes. Special considerations are included later in this article as well.

• Sprint performance and kinematic outcomes
• Sprint-specific range of motion
• Power
• Jump performance
• Elasticity
• Aerobic fitness

Examples of how each quality may be assessed are provided below.

Sprint Performance Determinants and Outcomes

Beyond simple split times, what do you consider valuable descriptors of sprint performance? More importantly, what do you believe are the determinants of sprint outcomes? These are the variables to capture and report.

Many are inclined to report data regarding sprint force-velocity profiling (FVP), such as F0, V0, and the slope of the curve. Perhaps rightfully so. A growing body of research supports the use of this method to individualize training for greater speed improvements.

Gathering and reporting such metrics is fine and not time-consuming—but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that sprint FVP is not without contention.

Dr. Peter Weyand, a renowned sprint and speed researcher, discussed his beliefs on why force-velocity profiling is a flawed method on the Pacey Performance Podcast. His biomechanical rationale is sound, and he presents a different perspective on why the method may not be the best way to characterize sprint performance.

Carl Valle has also presented perspectives on why the method may fail to deliver.

Regardless of your beliefs about sprint force-velocity profiling, many practitioners implement the method and claim to have success, so reporting those metrics may be of value if the strength coaches and sports scientists of the team you’re working with value those outputs.

Sport-Specific Speed Outcomes

Understanding general physical outputs like speed and power is valuable, but sport- and play-specific metrics are game-changing for sports coaches.

Readers of this article are likely well aware that acceleration and maximum velocity are related but distinct qualities. The best accelerator does not always boast the fastest top speed and vice versa. A 4.4-second 40-yard dash is impressive but not descriptive of how the athlete achieves such a time.

Using American football as an example, certain plays rely more on initial acceleration while others rely more on maximum speed. A three-step slant, for instance, has little to no relationship with top speed, but a deep dig or drag, a post, and a fade certainly do.

There is immense value in knowing which players have the best physical skill set to execute each route. Savvy offensive coordinators match particular plays with particular players, understanding which play types are best suited for which players. This understanding has traditionally been based on the coach’s intuition, eyes during practice, and film review, but the modern coach also utilizes data to support decision-making.

Hence, knowing which receiver has the fastest velocity at one, three, and five seconds post-snap is information that can alter game plans, personnel packages, and play calling.

Further, momentum at 3 yards and 5 yards is highly applicable for linemen, as it essentially quantifies how much force they deliver—in other words, how hard they hit—to that which they run into, be it a linebacker or defensive lineman. This is valuable information when considering who to pull to kick out the monstrous defensive end.

Other sporting examples include time from ball contact to first base, maximum dribbling speed in soccer, and track-specific metrics like time to and distance at the onset of maximum velocity and deceleration in a 100-meter sprint.

When determining what to assess, we are limited only by the imagination and depth of intimacy with each sport.

Sprint Kinematics

As sprint performance is, at simplest, determined by the relationship between kinetics and kinematics, assessing kinematics is critical.

There are several resources available on sprint kinematics, from Ralph Mann’s seminal work to the Tom Tellez and Carl Lewis book to online courses now readily available. Regarding the mechanics of capturing and analyzing video, I’ve previously written about performing an effective analysis, and Derek Hansen dedicates a complete section of his level one “Running Mechanics Professional” online course to Carl Valle, in which he discusses video capture and analysis in great detail.

While I can generate a whole report solely on kinematics, it is appropriate primarily for competitive sprinters fighting for milliseconds. That level of granularity is overkill for team sport athletes, who benefit most from ensuring the “big rocks” are in place. The time spent shaving a blink off a sprint via kinematic changes is best spent elsewhere for these athletes—whether in the weight room, practicing the sport itself, or otherwise.

Once the most critical kinematic components are in place, there’s no need to hyperfocus on minutia as one would with a spiked-up sprinter.

Having gone through a few iterations of sprint reports, I’ve learned to “trim the fat” and focus on the most coachable and relevant metrics: contact distance, contact and flight time, femur position at toe-off and maximum flexion, and a few other key KPIs, including step length and frequency.

The marriage of step length and frequency is, after all, the literal definition of speed.

An athlete with strong frequency but poor step length is telling when considering what variables to modify to increase speed. Clearly, this athlete calls for increased force expression without negatively affecting the neuromuscular “wiring” and decreasing frequency.

Likewise, an athlete with adequate step length but poor cycling will benefit from increased step frequency.

Lastly, we cannot look at any single metric in a vacuum. Say frequency is high—in the 4.5–5 steps-per-second range—but flight time is around 0.1 seconds or less. You can also bet that contact distance (distance between the point of contact of the foot upon touchdown and the center of mass) is too far, and I’d wager a good sum of money that maximum femur flexion is limited as well.

This athlete likely has very little vertical displacement and scuffles down the field rather than bouncing or gliding while sprinting. Flight time is often the tide that raises all boats, and trading a bit of frequency for increased step length may actually increase speed in this case.

Sprint Load-Velocity Profiling

Access to and understanding of resisted sprints has deepened significantly over the last decade. Moving the discussions from pounds on the sled (without controlling for surface friction, at that) to velocity decrement (the percent decrease in speed that a given load induces) was a giant leap forward in the application of resisted sprinting. Matt Cross’s work highlighting that maximum power is achieved at the load that produces a 50% velocity decrement created a platform for varying loads to be analyzed in research.

The 1080 Sprint upgraded the resisted sprint market (and assisted/overspeed sprints as well). The machine provides what harnesses and bungees cannot: precise, controllable resistance and objective data. Practitioners who enjoy taking a scientific and thorough approach love the 1080.

The unit also automates load-velocity profiling (see this piece by Matt Tometz for a thorough breakdown). This is crucial because, without a device like the 1080 Sprint or Dynaspeed, load-velocity profiles must be done via video analysis or radar/laser outputs and a little bit of Excel magic.

If you don’t have a 1080 Sprint or Dynaspeed, I don’t recommend completing a sprint load-velocity profile, as it takes too much time. If you do have access to these devices, do it, because it does add insightful data.

Stronger athletes can sprint against heavier weights faster than weaker ones. Stronger athletes (relative to body weight) also tend to have faster starting speeds, realized in 0–5-yard and 0–10-yard sprint times.

How fast an athlete can sprint with weight is evidence in the detective process of figuring out what stimulus they need to improve the most. For instance, if your audit reveals an athlete with slow starting speeds and poor sprint performance against heavy loads (meaning a high-velocity decrement comes at a relatively low load), part of the solution is likely heavy resisted sprints coupled with strength work in the weight room.

On the flip side, if the athlete can sprint relatively fast against heavy loads yet has poor starting speed, the issue is likely technical or related to the strength-to-size ratio (big athletes, like offensive linemen, fall into this category). If the audit also reveals poor kinematics in the first seven steps, then you’ve made a strong case for biasing training time toward technical interventions.

Beyond these insights, load-velocity profiles provide valuable training guidelines. Knowing what loads produce maximal power allows coaches to train at, above, or below that threshold with targeted interventions. Likewise, in the case above in which heavy resisted sprints are recommended, a sprint LVP reveals exactly what load constitutes heavy with razor-like precision, allowing for clear programming and targeted adaptations.

Range of Motion

Consider the major moving joints (as opposed to remaining stable) involved in sprinting: the ankle, knee, hip, and shoulder. Most people are not limited by shoulder flexion or extension range of motion, although I do wonder aloud how poor scapular mechanics affect the sprinting gait cycle.

Nonetheless, before asking athletes to maintain proper frontside mechanics, we ought to make sure such ranges of motion are available to them—specifically, hip extension. Poor hip extensibility could shift athletes into backside mechanics via an anterior pelvic tilt in order to achieve adequate femur position at toe-off.

Furthermore, knee extension ROM from a flexed hip position is critical, as it emulates hamstring mobility demands during the flight phase. It seems evident that limited knee extension range of motion from this position may be a risk factor for hamstring injury.

The Jurdan Test is a great option for assessing both hip and knee extension in a sprint-specific position.

I wrote about the Jurdan test here; you can review that article for detailed instructions on administering and scoring the test.

Dorsiflexion is also a critical factor in sprint performance. During mid-stance, as the center of mass travels over the foot, the foot should remain in complete contact with the ground. Premature elevation of the heel, which could happen if dorsiflexion is limited and the end range of motion is met, limits the stretch-shortening cycle of the Achilles tendon and results in less propulsive forces generated from the foot complex.

In other words, poor dorsiflexion range of motion likely makes you slower and addressing it could make athletes faster.

Assessing ankle ROM is thus of value. A simple way to do so is with an iPhone or a goniometer.

A shin angle of 40 degrees is the minimum we’d like to see here. A shin angle of 45 to 50 degrees is a more comfortable range of motion to work from.

Of note—I believe that the Goldilocks effect is in play here. Too little range of motion is limiting for obvious reasons, but too much flexibility is likely maladaptive as well. Approaching an end range likely facilitates part of the stretch-shortening cycle and may help prevent dangerous positions from being achieved. These mobility screens are effective ways to quantify the range of motion to be sure athletes are in a healthy zone.

Weight Room Profiling

Although you wouldn’t know it by logging on to Twitter, I believe the majority of coaches share mostly similar views on weight room training for athletes. The debate over whether a power clean or trap bar jump is superior stems from a fundamental agreement that power training is valuable. Without that underlying agreement, we would ask, “why do either?”

While I don’t believe power is the end-all, be-all, it is a critical component and certainly one of the primary KPIs for most athletic endeavors, including change of direction and forcefully moving another object (like a ball or person). Power is also a significant contributor to speed at the sub-elite level (read: non-Olympic sprinters).

Here, I will provide a few specific recommendations about weight room profiling in general and suggest a few specific assessments that are not in everyday use.

Power Profiles

Generating power profiles for the major lifts you choose to implement is both descriptive of and prescriptive for athlete force production performance and potential across a spectrum of velocities. They quantify how strong, fast, and powerful an athlete is—the marriage between strength and speed. The profiles do so by illuminating the following:

• Maximum unweighted velocity (or velocity with just a bar, a proxy for unweighted velocity).
• One rep max.
• Maximum power.
• Load that yields maximal power, dubbed “optimal load” in the literature.

Most VBT devices automatically generate load-velocity and load-power profiles after completing a few reps with various weights. If you need to do it manually, you can compute the time it takes to complete the concentric portion of a lift via video analysis and run the calculations yourself. This video provides an excellent and thorough overview of how to create your own load-velocity profiles in Excel.

Once you obtain the data, you may compare athletes against each other. For example, a receiver may boast a very high 1RM in the back squat but a relatively low peak velocity in the squat jump with just the barbell, and that provides context for training. In this case, the athlete would benefit from skewing more volume toward the velocity side of the spectrum and away from the maximum strength side with exercises like CMJs and lightly loaded jumps.

To assess general athletic/power abilities, these lifts are worthy of inclusion:

• Squat
• Deadlift
• Squat jump
• Bench press
• Landmine press
• Clean variation of choice

Certain teams and strength coaches prefer particular lifts over others. The above list isn’t rigid, but assessing the main lifts you choose to implement in your S&C program is ideal.

From there, you are armed with data to improve athlete power. Although there isn’t one “best practice” for improving power production, in general, training slightly above and below the optimal load (the weight that produces maximum power) is a solid strategy.

Calf Strength 

Beyond profiling the general lifts for raw physical outputs and preparedness, I recommend assessing a few specific actions: plantarflexion and hip extension force production.

These movements are rate limiters for speed, meaning even if the other pieces of the speed puzzle are in place, missing either of these qualities significantly limits speed potential.

Calf strength is particularly important during initial acceleration. The foot needs to be stable during the first steps of a sprint so the rest of the leg can push against it and propel the body forward. If the heel drops significantly upon ground contact during the first few steps, there is a significant energy leak that limits the rate of acceleration.

In athlete speak, stronger calves = more explosive starts.

Anecdotally, this is probably one of the reasons heavy sleds improve initial acceleration. Without discounting their effect on the rest of the system, we must recognize the training effect the calf and foot receive.

Maximum speed is also influenced by calf strength and power. Plantarflexion is the last piece of the kinetic chain—the crack of the whip—as the calf must overcome the force produced by the rest of the leg musculature pushing down into the ground to raise the heel and create plantarflexion.

During the final portions of ground contact, when the heel raises naturally due to reaching the end range of dorsiflexion, the calf must again act as an anchor, as it does during initial acceleration, to hold the heel in place and allow the hip extensors to push against it. Significant strength and power are required, and identifying athletes who lack such strength is an instrumental finding.

Hip Torque

Beyond calf contributions, the hip extensors play a special role in speed, as hip extension is clearly the primary driver of force into the ground. Squat and deadlift numbers are great and are indeed descriptive (to a degree) of hip extension potential, but let us recognize that hip extension creates both vertical and horizontal force, and those tasks are related to but distinct from each other.

Squats, deadlifts, and the IMTP all assess vertical force production. This is valuable and worth auditing, as vertical force production is a significant KPI toward maximal speed

But advanced sprinters understand that negative foot speed is also a critical variable, and striking the ground with an emphasis on such foot speed produces elite levels of force. Negative foot speed refers to the foot traveling backward—toward the center of mass—instead of strictly downward in a vertical fashion during the terminal swing phase. Coaches sometimes cue this as “pawing the ground,” a cue I’m not fond of but one that is descriptive of the action.

A stronger cue is one I learned from a coach who prefers anonymity: he refers to this action as swinging an axe, where the foot is the head of the axe. When chopping wood, the arc of the axe head eventually swings back toward the center of mass, like a pendulum, and not strictly downward in a vertical or piston-like fashion. So, too, should the foot travel backward toward the center of mass during the terminal stages of the swing phase.

Hip extension drives this motion.

Squats and deadlifts both involve the pelvis moving over a stationary foot. They are closed-chain actions juxtaposed with the open-chain motion of sprinting, wherein the foot travels through space underneath a pelvis that is fixed in relation to the torso (i.e., not hinging or moving vertically, as in squats and deadlifts).

Thus, analyzing hip extension in this forward-to-backward motion is highly specific to sprint speed. Said otherwise: we must assess hip extension ability where the pelvis is fixed in space and the foot and shank are the body parts intended to move, as opposed to the opposite, as in the lifts mentioned above.

My favorite assessment comes from the work of James Wild, who adapted a test originated by Goodwin and Bull. Fix the hips against an immovable object (like a heavily loaded barbell), place the heels on a force plate, and press them down into the plate as hard as possible, as if trying to make a crater with the heels.

Video 1. Hip isometric assessment, originated by Goodwin and Bull and enhanced by James Wild, integrating video and force plate data via Noraxon. The assessment quantifies RFD and maximal force production alike. Data must be normalized against body weight to draw conclusions regarding sprint performance.

A critical point: for this test to produce valid and actionable data, you must convert the force values gathered from the plates to hip torque and then generate torque-to-body-weight ratios, as opposed to force-to-body-weight. Torque takes limb length into account and is truly what drives horizontal sprint performance, as hip torque drives hip angular velocity and, thus, ground reaction force.

Let me be clear: ground reaction torque does not exist; ground reaction force is what propels athletes forward. But hip torque is what generates the hip and foot velocities that produce the resultant ground reaction force.

Indeed, the length of the moment arm plays a pivotal role in force expression. My intentions here are not to deliver a physics lesson, but the longer the moment arm (driven by leg length, in this case), the greater the torque. Thus, a taller athlete requires more hip torque (read: force production, i.e., strength) to get the same ground reaction force as a shorter-limbed athlete.

In practice, this means taller athletes require stronger hips than shorter ones. Clearly, training implications are present here. Once normalized to body weight, fair comparisons about hip torque can be made.

Analyzing torque with the knee bent to about 90 degrees and again with a knee at 15 degrees paints a more complete picture. A 90-degree knee better represents acceleration demands when the knee is much more flexed upon ground contact than it is during upright mechanics. Indeed, squats, deadlifts, and the IMTP may serve as a proxy for this measurement, but this position and hamstring/glute coupling are still more specific to early acceleration than those lifts are.

Propulsion and Elasticity

Whereas the hip assessments above directly measure RFD and maximal force production, jump tests deliver further insights into ballistic horizontal and vertical force production capacity, as well as elastic abilities.

The following tests are recommended:

• Broad jump
• Vertical jump
• 10-5 RSI/Scandinavian rebound jump test
• Triple broad jump

The following tests are honorable mentions that deserve consideration if time is not a constraint:

• Single-leg broad jump
• Single-leg 10-5 RSI/Scandinavian jump test
• Triple hop for RSI assessment

Data interpretations are provided later in this article, so I won’t belabor this point for now. I will quickly mention that the single-leg tests are valuable for assessing asymmetry and point out that the triple broad jump is an underrated tool, as it values both raw propulsion capability (force production) and elasticity. An MLB strength coach once told me that, for his players, the triple broad had the highest correlation with time to first base—even greater than the 90-foot sprint test!

Video 2. The 10-5 RSI and the Scandinavian jump test both evaluate the elastic potential of the lower leg. A jump mat, force plate, or contact grid (as shown in the video) can all streamline data collection. Alternatively, video analysis to quantify flight and contact times works but is laborious and time-consuming.

Aerobic Fitness

I’ve previously discussed how and why aerobic conditioning is vital for team sports athletes. In summary, aerobic health is a significant factor in repeat sprint ability. If you want athletes who can play fast while tired—or who aren’t tired when opponents are—aerobic fitness is a priority.

The 30-15 intermittent fitness test is an assessment that takes 25 minutes at most to complete, can be deployed with entire teams at once, and is valid and reliable enough to collect actionable data (see this article for an overview). The test provides a value similar to maximal aerobic speed from which coaches can A) estimate VO2max, B) track athlete progress objectively, and C) program conditioning workouts.

All you need to complete the test is a loudspeaker, YouTube, 40 meters of space, and a few cones.

The beauty is that the entire team can complete the test together, a myriad of research has been done to establish normative values (although, in fairness, most research is done on soccer athletes of varying levels), and coaches will quickly discover which athletes need to spend more time conditioning.

Sport-Specific KPIs and Holistic Health

Subsets of athletes who face unique sporting demands, such as overhead athletes, warrant specific testing. Quantifying shoulder rotation ROM and scapular mechanics for softball and baseball players, as well as javelin throwers, for instance, is a necessity.

Each of these athletes also utilizes rotational power to fuel performance.

The better you know the sport, the more closely you can capture high-value KPIs that coaches appreciate, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

The better you know the sport, the more closely you can capture high-value KPIs that coaches appreciate. Adding exit velocity and a 90-foot sprint time to the athlete audit provides metrics that coaches find valuable—increasing your value simultaneously.

Other items to consider:

• Bloodwork and nutrition
• Lifestyle and sleep habits
• HRV status
• Team/school satisfaction
• Mental health and resilience

The point here is to look beyond physical capacity and toward the person as a whole, recognizing that they are more than a revenue earner and a stat scorer—they’re a complete person.

Are you happy with your college or team dynamics? Are you sleeping and eating well? Are you healthy internally? Are you mentally resilient enough to respond positively to adverse situations?

Respecting both the athlete as a person and the best interests of the team is not mutually exclusive. Healthy individuals create healthy teammates, and healthy teammates make for a healthy team capable of winning games. We need not pretend that pursuing W’s is inherently wrong or unhealthy or that maximizing athlete well-being in an effort to win is unjust.

Ultimately, ensuring holistic athlete health is best for the person and the team.

Interpreting the Data

Data tells a story. Our job is to extract and understand the story to make confident decisions that advance athlete potential on the field, court, or track. To do so, we must seek common threads that point toward certain lacking features.

Training time is limited, and coaches must know how to spend those precious minutes best to assert the most desirable outcomes for athletes. The more evidence that suggests a common theme, the stronger the case for biasing training toward that quality.

Ryan Grubbs discusses this concept and how he assesses athletes in an interview on the Pacey Performance Podcast.

To make clean comparisons regarding sprint speed, the strength and power data needs to be normalized to body weight. Sprinting is, of course, moving one’s body—so the numbers need to reflect that. When you compare athletes amongst a team, do so using the metrics relative to body weight. Otherwise, you run into the issue of thinking a 175-pound freshman receiver with a 375-pound back squat (2.14x body weight) needs to be stronger because the 245-pound linebackers are all squatting 450+ pounds (1.8x body weight).

Once the data is normalized to body weight, you can separate athletes in several ways: using quartiles, quintiles, Z-scores, standard deviations, etc.

None of these methods is perfect. They always produce bottom-of-the-barrel athletes, as there is always a “weakest” athlete in any group, even if they are actually absurdly strong. The opposite is also true: when using quartiles, there will always be athletes at the top, even if they are, in reality, poor performers.

The better route is to utilize challenging standards by which athletes can be compared. Research helps elucidate what these standards should be and allows coaches to use cut-off zones to determine if athletes indeed are deficient or, rather, simply the least elite of the group in that particular test.

The assessments discussed here have been selected via a reverse-engineering thought process. I want to know:

1. What performance factors influence the chances of success in sports?
2. What physical qualities underpin those factors?
3. How can those qualities be accurately assessed?

Without answers to these three questions, I won’t be able to interpret the data collected. For instance, without understanding that maximum strength and power are significant contributors to initial acceleration (the first steps in a sprint), we wouldn’t know to be curious about the strength and power metrics collected from an athlete with a slow start. Even further, we may not know that an athlete with a poor start yet sound strength and power metrics (relative to body weight—a paramount modification that cannot be overlooked when analyzing these outputs relative to sprint speed) likely has poor kinematics.

Providing a comprehensive education is beyond the scope of this article, but a few examples have already been provided for how you may interpret the audit. Sometimes the answer is straightforward, as in when most values are relatively high, but one or two are significantly low, like an athlete who is strong and powerful in the weight room but has a poor triple broad jump and a 10-5 RSI test. This athlete will benefit from elasticity work more than more weight room training.

As athletes become more elite, the audits typically become more difficult to interpret. This is why the audit exists in the first place: to determine what a great athlete needs to become even better. Share on X

Likewise, athletes with poor sprint kinematics but good weight room numbers should receive technical training if they want to be faster.

Other times, the answer is more complex—and as the athletes become more and more elite, the audits typically become more difficult to interpret. However, that is the reason the audit exists in the first place: to determine what a great athlete needs to become even better. It’s not worth the time to audit a first-year high school student only to conclude that everything must get better.

Packaging and Reporting the Data

It is not lost on me that this is a lot of data to collect, analyze, make recommendations from, and report back to the relevant parties. Completing each of these is our job as performance analysts, but the final step, reporting the data, is unique in that there is a recipient we must ensure understands the results with ease and clarity.

In reality, most performance analysis consultant jobs will be hired by the S&C, sport science, or medical staff—not the sports coaches themselves. While the support staff and the sports coaches are literally on the same team and are pulling the boat in the same direction—putting the team in a better position to win games—your job is to make those who hired you look good to their direct reports, who is usually the head sports coach.

The report you generate must clearly display the raw data you’ve collected, a brief analysis of those results, and the training recommendations deduced from them. It should be detailed enough for the strength, sport science, and medical staff to appreciate and follow, and clear enough for athletes and sports coaches alike to understand the bottom line.

Reports should be no more than one page per athlete and include a one-page team and position group summary.

Lastly, the report should “bucket” athletes into training groups based on the findings and recommendations. Doing so makes life easy for the strength and sport science staff and allows them to program with clear goals in mind.

Checkpoints and Re-Auditing: Ensuring Progress and Long-Term Development

Athlete audits are not meant as a one-time assessment, never to be revisited. Scheduling periodic data collection is vital for ensuring athletes progress in the desired domains, but such testing does not have to be formal, time-consuming, or overbearing.

To be clear: completing a full audit will take a whole training session, maybe two, depending on the time and facilities available as well as the flow of the program. It’s not wrong to collect data over two or more sessions to compile the audit. However, once the complete picture is pulled together, regular testing should monitor the areas of specific emphasis (the qualities highlighted in red in the image above). It can be built into training sessions to collect data and monitor athletes in an ecologically valid environment without disrupting the training process.

Scheduling periodic data collection is vital for ensuring athletes progress in the desired domains, but such testing doesn’t have to be formal, time-consuming, or overbearing, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

A timed fly run or acceleration, a measured broad or vertical jump, and strength and power outputs in the weight room are data most coaches are likely gathering anyway. Monitor these key metrics to ensure athletes are progressing, understanding which values are the actual KPIs and which are the contributors to those KPIs.

Even with regular monitoring, complete audits should be scheduled annually or semi-annually. Doing so provides a host of key benefits:

• Quantifies athlete growth in response to the interventions delivered.
• Communicates to the athlete that they are indeed being tested and monitored (an undervalued aspect of auditing).
• Creates a new vision of what the athlete needs to continue improving.
• Ensures athlete strengths are not declining.
• Updates baseline data in the event of an injury.
• Updates database of normative values to compare against.
• Reveals insights between specific qualities and how they affect the major KPIs, like sprint and jump performance.
• Allows for long-term monitoring of athlete growth and development.
• Puts coaches and athletes on the same page, so to speak, with strength and sport science staff.

Failing to redo the battery of assessments is shortsighted and a lost opportunity. Perhaps most evidently, it would be a colossal failure to only monitor areas of weakness and ignore what makes the athlete great in the first place. If those qualities slip and backslide, the athlete may wind up worse than they started.

Dangers of Focus: Goodhart’s Law

Jo Clubb penned a fantastic and enlightening piece, “Why Every Practitioner Needs to Know Goodhart’s Law.”

In our setting, Goodhart’s Law dictates that when athletes and coaches focus too much on improving test measures, the value of those test measures may diminish or become irrelevant.

In Jo’s words: “We are in danger of optimizing for a metric that may not influence our ultimate goal (performance or injury) or, worse still, could potentially harm the goal.”

Coaches should take care not to make the performance test what matters and always keep in mind that enhanced game play is the end goal, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

I believe the list of test measures proposed in this article is a strong one, but I certainly don’t believe these are the only metrics that can or should be collected. Coaches should take care not to make the performance test what matters and always keep in mind that enhanced game play is the end goal.

Indeed, we see this in elite athletes who do not present elite physical attributes. Game knowledge or technical and tactical execution can often offset physical inadequacies.

An Afterword

I have previously outlined guidelines to complete an effective sprint analysis. Two of the points (which are relevant to team testing) deserve a word of expansion.

I recommended not using an iPhone to film and instead using an actual camera with a tripod. A camera serves dual purposes:

1. Higher image quality.
2. Professional appearance and execution.

While I state that iPhones are great for quick and dirty analyses—and I use my iPhone for immediate feedback during training sessions—the point of using a camera for formal analyses may have come across as a bit pompous, which was unintended.

Lastly, I recommended shooting at 120 fps in 4k versus 240 fps at 1080p quality (iPhone quality). This drew a bit of criticism, as folks accurately pointed out that 240 fps allows for a more granular calculation of contact and flight times as well as velocities via splits (4ms intervals vs. 8ms intervals). That is a fair point.

The solutions are simple: either film one sprint at 120 fps and 4k and the next at 240 fps or, as I do now, film all sprints at 240 fps with 2.7k image quality, an option my camera affords. The tradeoff between 4k and 2.7k for twice the frame rate is a good exchange.

Auditing Is the Future

The future of strength and conditioning will continue moving away from glorifying a single quality, like maximum strength, and will evolve more and more toward individualized interventions.

The future of S&C will continue moving away from glorifying a single quality, like maximum strength, and will evolve more and more toward individualized interventions, says @KD_KyleDavey. Share on X

The old style of programming is to give all athletes the same general strength and conditioning workouts, cross your fingers, and hope they get better. For developmental athletes and cases when full auditing isn’t available, general programming that addresses the major physical qualities will probably provide improvement most of the time.

But for the advanced athlete and coach seeking more than the minimum, customized programming tailored to specific needs yields greater results.

Athlete auditing reveals invaluable insights, provides a true north that guides interventions, and allows strength and conditioning coaches to confidently program at an elite level to elicit elite results.

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

Goodwin JE and Bull AM. “Novel Assessment of Isometric Hip Extensor Function: Reliability, Joint Angle Sensitivity, and Concurrent Validity.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2022;36(10):2762–2770.

Wild JJ, Bezodis IN, North JS, and Bezodis NE. “Characterising initial sprint acceleration strategies using a whole-body kinematics approach.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 2022;40(2): 203–214.

A coaching role is a teaching responsibility and we must understand that educating our athletes cannot be a passive or secondary behavior. Whether you work with young athletes or an adult population, those individuals have sought out the services of a coach in order to receive direction and guidance. And while there is an obvious tangible component to this (i.e., improving physical traits), there is also an underlying essence to what athletes expect from coaches: clarity and confidence.

Largely influenced by replicating a militaristic approach, for several decades the coaching industry had been misguided into believing that we needed to be the resident disciplinarian or authority figure within the sport or training setting. Fortunately, we are seemingly entering a transition point where the majority of us have seen the obvious shortcomings of this approach. Rather than meeting athletes with superiority and intimidation tactics, we need to recognize the importance of humanizing our relationship with our athletes. This doesn’t mean that we are without structure and professionalism; but there is a resounding difference between treating athletes like humans and soldiers at boot camp.

There is a resounding difference between treating athletes like humans and soldiers at boot camp, says @danmode_vhp. Share on X

Most of this speaks for itself, but a lot of these steps are just taking more initiative with the intangibles we all know—making eye contact when athletes are speaking to you, listening attentively, being considerate of their input, and so forth. These are things that require no technical skill or credentialling but really solidify how to be a good human.

I’ve made countless adjustments to my coaching and perception of human performance over the years, but few things have been more influential than incorporating a designated movement literacy day and putting an emphasis on developing or repairing the athlete’s relationship with training.

In this article, I’d like to cover a thorough breakdown of what my movement literacy session involves, and how this corresponds to taking a more educational approach with your athletes. Additionally, we will cover the importance of addressing your athlete’s relationship with their body and their understanding of the training process.

Movement Literacy Framework & Objectives

The overarching goals for a movement literacy session are simple: improve the athlete’s movement awareness and understanding of their body while providing clear insight as to what they can expect throughout the training process. Where the first session is dedicated to intake and assessment, my second session with someone is dedicated to this movement literacy session (~50-60 minutes).

In addition to the primary goals above, there are a few other elements we want to include or emphasize in the movement literacy session. We want to view this session as setting a robust foundation for the athlete to build on, and with this we want to cover all of our “big rock” items up front.

My approach includes introducing primary movements and functional patterns, providing context for frequent cues and training components, identifying individual deficits, and introducing warm-up and at-home protocols. Where I have my list of priorities from the coaching side, there is also a priority from the athlete’s perspective as well, so I make an effort to provide an environment that is welcoming to questions, input, and in some cases even collaboration.

I was told once by a military dog handler that their mantra when first starting to work with the service dogs is “Clear is kind, and kind is clear.” It just so happens this phrase fits beautifully for humans as well. I have since adopted this mantra for the sake of movement literacy concepts—being clear with your athletes is a simple way of also demonstrating kindness, as it shows you’re able to be empathetic to others, particularly those in a new environment taking on a new learning endeavor.

I was told once by a military dog handler that their mantra when first starting to work with the service dogs is *Clear is kind, and kind is clear.* It just so happens this phrase fits beautifully for humans as well, says @danmode_vhp. Share on X

Step 1: Movement Mechanics & Awareness

The first step in our movement literacy session is dedicated to introducing movement awareness and basic functional anatomical concepts. We have been quick to assume that athletes don’t care about technical aspects of training and this has been a point of contention amongst coaches for decades.

Not only do I vehemently disagree with that stance, but I have also found that by introducing these concepts early on, it prompts a sense of responsibility from the athlete to be more engaged in the training process. Sure, of course we’re going to have situations where athletes couldn’t possibly have any less interest in the details of movement and training, but what about those who do? We cannot automatically assume that our athletes are disinterested in learning because that assumption can be a damming disservice to the ones who do.

I will typically use a combination of whiteboard illustrations, visual demonstrations, and even video recordings of how they move as discussion points. This is conducted in a simple joint-by-joint approach, where I want to give them the surface level anatomy understanding and demonstrate how it is reflected in training. My standard five points here include:

1. Mechanics of the foot
2. How the hips move
3. Trunk & spine
4. Mechanics of the shoulder
5. Basic kinetic relationships

Remember we aren’t trying to bludgeon them with graduate level anatomy. We are giving them a simple introduction within the context of how it relates to our training process. I’ve found this to be especially valuable for athletes coming off injury. We should also approach this time with the intention of utilizing an of array teaching styles (i.e., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) so that we can observe how the athlete responds best to instruction.

Remember we aren’t trying to bludgeon them with graduate level anatomy. We are giving them a simple introduction within the context of how it relates to our training process, says @danmode_vhp. Share on X

Step 2: Functional 5 + Primary Movements

Once we have introduced the joint-by-joint and movement awareness concepts, we then want to shift to more involved elements. This begins with what I’ve termed to be my “Functional 5,” which is a simple battery that gives me multiple input points on how the parts work together. Nothing about these five movements is critical and you can populate this segment with whatever you find valuable.

Ultimately what we’re looking for here is a series of movements that give the athlete a sense of familiarity with the basics while providing coaches with an opportunity to evaluate a variety of patterns/movements. My general list for the functional 5 includes:

1. Neck and shoulder movement
2. Push-up
3. 4-way crawl
4. OH march + switch
5. Split squat + lunge

In addition to the functional patterns, I will also look to cover primary movements that will be performed frequently in training (i.e., squat variations, pulling, landmine variations). This is not meant to be a full install day, so really we are just touching on the primary elements involved and things for the athlete to be aware of. This provides a good opportunity to incorporate frequent cueing and context to different common positions we will work from. This not only helps to make sense of the anatomy points but also simplifies the instructions that will follow throughout training.

Step 3: Address Athlete Priorities

Where the first half of the movement literacy session is allocated for me covering my points from the coaching side, the back half is reserved for the athlete. Our primary consideration here is addressing the athlete’s individual priorities or specific deficits. Carving out time for this has been tremendously effective for me. There is a different outcome or takeaway than I normally have during a formal assessment, given that it is much more interactive by design.

Our primary consideration here is addressing the athlete’s individual priorities or specific deficits, says @danmode_vhp. Share on X

Moreover, once we hit the training floor, especially in a group setting, it’s difficult for coaches to get too in-depth on individual ailments. By emphasizing this during our movement literacy session, we can alleviate this issue and clear up any ambiguity right out of the gate.

When addressing athletes about their movement limitations or injuries, it’s imperative you do so in a way that isn’t indicting or demeaning. The ultimate goal of working with injuries or impairments is treating the athlete just like any other athlete. From the way you interact and communicate to the type of exercise and training parameters, we want to keep our injured crowd as close to the norm as possible. The psychological cascade of injury is complex and can often run deep, but the last things injured or limited athletes want are reminders of it.

Beyond that, we want to assert confidence in our ability to help while providing clarity and expectations for the plan moving forward. I think it’s refreshing for the athlete to feel like they are being treated like a human. This was especially the case for me working in the tactical realm, where the inherent expectation was for training to be a carbon copy of boot camp.

Irrespective of their background, there should always be an understood presence of parity between coach and athlete. This is especially the case with injured athletes; considering how much of the medical world can be cold and dismissive, I think we are in an opportune position to provide a sense of empathy and genuine care. Remember: clear is kind, and kind is clear.

Irrespective of their background, there should always be an understood presence of parity between coach and athlete, says @danmode_vhp. Share on X

Step 4: Whiteboard Review

This is effectively just a recap and summary period where we want to reiterate primary points of emphasis and goals moving forward. Somewhat of an extension from the point above, I will always be sure to allocate time for Q&A, although the goal is to have thorough dialogue throughout so there isn’t a demand for the awkward “ask me everything right now” prompting.

Nevertheless, we want to drive home two or three major points. Nobody will recall the whole session, but if we can just get even two things of value across, our time was worth it. Close the session out by reinforcing that they are an active part of this process. Not only is their input valuable, but it’s encouraged.

Training Relationships

I’ll leave you with a few points on training relationships, as they are intimately connected to the movement literacy session. Recognizing the poor relationship athletes have with training has been one of the most alarming things I’ve learned over the years. By poor relationship, I don’t mean not understanding how to put a routine together or picking bad exercises. What I mean by poor relationship is quite literally a lack of understanding the empirical purpose of training: moving better, performing better, and feeling better.

There are a ton of athletes and individuals out there who see training as an obligatory chore (at best) and as punishment (at worst). My goal in these cases is to shift their perspective of training from obligation to opportunity. We still want them to involve themselves in the training process, if not immerse themselves. At the end of the day, a lack of care or fulfillment for what we do will inevitably compromise results, even if the endeavor of training is well intended (i.e., wanting to get better for sport, improve general health). We don’t need everyone to love training, but we should do our part to at least encourage most to enjoy it.

Don’t lose sight of the underlying responsibility of being a teacher when you’re in a coaching position, says @danmode_vhp. Share on X

And overall, make it a priority to help guide them to a better understanding and ultimately better habits and practices as they apply to training. There is of course a time and place to push the needle, but in most cases, these sessions should not represent the majority of training. Don’t allow your athletes to correlate the effectiveness of their workouts based on their sweat rate or level of exhaustion. When the training is less demanding, explain to them what the goal of the session is, because what may be seen as pointless or a waste of time to them can be a transcendent learning point. Don’t lose sight of the underlying responsibility of being a teacher when you’re in a coaching position.

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

The block start has been used in international competitions since 1937 and was first seen at the Olympics in 1948. Starting from a fixed block was shown to be advantageous over a standing start or non-starting block crouched position in the initial sector of sprinting. This is due to its favorable position to develop horizontal over vertical forces in the initial few strides to enhance acceleration.

However, starting block positions vary according to anthropometric measures, limb strength, flexibility, asymmetry, and athletic experience. Biomechanist Dr. Ralph Mann goes into extraordinary detail in this area, and I heartily endorse his book The Biomechanics of Sprinting and Hurdling for those wanting more detail.

Some coaches will also have athletes whose techniques are raw and unrefined and whose positions have remained unchanged since they first put spike to block.

The Project

I am fortunate to work alongside one of Australia’s best technical coaches, Scott Rowsell of RAD Squad. Together, we undertook a project to improve the first 10 meters of a 10.6-second sprinter using Plantiga to guide our decision-making. You can read more information on Plantiga in a previous article here.

We undertook a project to improve the first 10 meters of a 10.6-second sprinter using Plantiga to guide our decision-making. Share on X

The athlete has adopted a “right foot back plate” position (see image 1 above) over the last five years; however, individualized strength and force plate testing demonstrate more power and concentric force-producing capability in the first 100 milliseconds on the right side (see figure 1 below).

Therefore, the rationale was to switch him to a “left foot back plate” position to place the more powerful right limb in the front block and then take advantage of the longer contact time and force-generating ability out of the blocks (see image 2 below).

The Data

Left Foot Back Plate Position

Figure 2 shows the raw data collection of just the first five steps of this athlete’s block start with his “left foot back plate.” Plantiga enables you to zoom in or zoom out on this sort of data, allowing for deep, individualized analysis or a basic summary report with essential metrics such as load, peak acceleration, peak velocity, and asymmetry, to name just a few.

To simplify the explanation, the following points relate to the data pictured above:

1. Rear (left) foot push-off.
2. Front (right) foot push-off.
3. Step 1. Left foot strike (landing acceleration).
4. Left foot push-off.
5. Step 2. Right foot strike (landing acceleration).
6. Right foot push-off.
7. Step 3. Ground contact time.
8. Right foot “air time.”
9. Step 4. Ground contact time.
10. Time from rear foot leaving the block to first step.

The time to step 1 (point 10) for the left foot back plate position can be measured using the software. This is one of the most important considerations in perfecting the block start. An early first step would indicate a smaller first step, allowing for optimal acceleration rates as the center of gravity remains ahead of the leading foot. In this case, the time recorded was 0.314 seconds.

Plantiga enables you to zoom in or zoom out on this sort of data, allowing for deep, individualized analysis or a basic summary report with essential metrics. Share on X

In addition to the data generated automatically by Plantiga (e.g., peak acceleration, load, and ground contact time asymmetry), other data of relevance would be the push-off and landing accelerations across each step. The landing acceleration is similar to ground reaction force (GRF) in this case but measured in units of gravity (g), not Newtons (N).

Figure 3 displays this for the first three steps.

Right Foot Back Plate Position

As a comparison, the figures in red below are shown for the left foot rear plate setup.

Summary of Key Data

The data that can be retrieved from the Plantiga software to assist in the technical analysis of an elite sprinters block start is quite outstanding. It can be summarized into the following data sets: Time and Technical, Power and Acceleration, Load, and Asymmetry.

Time/Technical

Time to three steps showed a 25.1% difference (0.629 seconds to 0.787 seconds) between the right foot back (RFB) and the left foot back (LFB), which is the newer unpracticed position. Time to first step was 45.3% quicker (0.216 seconds to 0.314 seconds) with RFB, though GCT on first step was comparable across sides.

This is suggestive of poorer starting mechanics in the LFB but similar ankle stiffness across both sides.

Power/Acceleration

Peak acceleration of 4.99 m/s/s with RFB was 27.6% better than LFB. This was supported by a total departure push (rear and front foot push) from the blocks being 18.8% higher and the total push from blocks to step 3 being 10.0% higher for the RFB position.

Load

Total landing acceleration (similar to GRF) was 8.1% higher for LFB, where the total push force described earlier over the first three steps was 10% less. We could hypothesize that the mechanics induced by the less-familiar LFB position generated positions that resulted in higher landing accelerations and the observed asymmetry.

The presence of these two variables is undesirable without observed improvements in “departure force” or time to three steps, potentially creating an injury risk if exposed over time.

Asymmetry

Load asymmetry was 18.43% to the right for LFB compared to 8.94% to the right for RFB and ground contact time 12.12% to 3.95%, respectively, to the right. As we saw with force plate testing (figure 1), the right leg was able to generate higher force than the left, so the asymmetry to the right was expected.

Results and Final Takeaways

The data reflects that sprinting from a block start is a skill and requires a learned technique. This athlete had five years of an RFB position and only a small number of trials in the LFB prior to this testing session to ensure safety, which explains the inferior results observed as described above.

If this had been trained over many months, we could satisfactorily state that it is not worth pursuing this position change. But at this point, with the limited number of sessions, it is still unknown.

Will the time and energy spent refining the new block start position yield an overall benefit to the 100-meter sprint? Plantiga provides objective, professional-grade data that can help you decide. Share on X

The question that the athlete and the coach must answer is, will the time and energy spent refining the new position yield an overall benefit to the 100-meter sprint?

The rationale for its pursuit is sound, utilizing the more powerful right leg at the front for the longer block contact phase. However, could a similar result be achieved via an increased strength focus on the left leg at the front block angle?

These questions epitomize the art of coaching—but coaching without data is subjective. Plantiga can provide a plethora of objective, professional-grade data specific to assisting this decision-making process. It is simple, quick, unobtrusive, and within the financial reach of even the amateur 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