Blog

You’ve probably heard of the 10,000 hours rule—essentially, this rule states that it takes around 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to become an expert. The rule itself was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell, who built on initial research by Anders Ericsson. Ericsson’s key research, carried out on musicians, demonstrated that expert musicians spent significantly more time engaged in deliberate practice than less successful musicians, with a relationship between the amount of deliberate practice and the level of expertise—a finding replicated across domains (but not unchallenged). The theory, at least as espoused here, is that the more time spent practicing—and, hence, the earlier we begin deliberate practice—the more likely we are to become experts.

Now, it’s important for me to state that I hate the 10,000 hours rule, or at least the version that has become popularized (Ericsson distanced himself from Gladwell’s own retelling of the research). I don’t think that everyone can become world class at something by just accumulating sufficient hours of deliberate practice; in sports—especially sports such as track and field—I believe that genetics play a huge role in both how good we can become and how much we can improve.

I don’t think that everyone can become world class at something by just accumulating sufficient hours of deliberate practice, says @craig100m. Share on X

Other researchers agree with me; the heritability of elite athlete status, for example, has been calculated at around 66%, meaning that our genetics certainly do have a role in how good we can become. This isn’t to say that practice isn’t important—it certainly is—but that it’s not the only thing that determines how good we can be. I even wrote about this, from the view of sprinting, for this website. In short, I feel like everyone can get better, but not everyone can be world class.

And yet I keep coming back to the idea of expert performance.

Ericsson’s initial research was looking at experts—people who are very good at what they do. There are many different types of experts, such as knowledge experts, expert drivers, really good actors. In sport, we often don’t use the term expert, but instead focus on adjectives such as “world class” or “elite.” In track and field, I’m not entirely sure the two are the same: an elite athlete might have the physical characteristics required for success in their event, but are they an expert? Can they accurately explain the processes by which they gain performance success? Do they even need to? In track and field I feel there are two main mental models of performance, which I call the biomechanical model and the physiological model. In the biomechanical model, coaches and athletes aim to understand the key mechanical underpinnings of performance in their event, and then develop training sessions and plans to optimize these. In the physiological model, coach and athlete do the same, but through a physical lens.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with these two models (and, like all models, they are a dramatic oversimplification), but what if we start to consider what “expert” might look like in track and field? I’d argue that the main goal of competition for elite athletes is to win competitions, or at least finish as high as possible in competitions, with greater weight placed on competitions of increased importance, such as the Olympics/Paralympics and World Championships. To do this, athletes need to have the physical characteristics required for success, but also be able to deliver the required performance on the day that it matters. This means that other factors come into play: an effective taper, the ability to perform under pressure, and making the correct tactical decisions in the heat of competition. This is where I think expertise comes into track and field; it’s all about using what you have to deliver a successful performance.

As my thinking in the area of expertise in sport has developed over the last couple of years, so has my interest. As such, I recently picked up Developing Sport Expertise (edited by Damian Farrow, Joe Baker, and Clare MacMahon). Specifically, I picked up the first edition of this book published in 2007, but there is also a more recent 2013 version that I’m about to work my way through. The stimulus for this specific textbook was a workshop held at the Australian Institute of Sport in 2005 on the topic of Applied Sport Expertise and Learning. Each person attending the workshop was asked three key questions:

1. What does your research tell us about the development of elite athletes?
2. How can this information be used to optimize training and performance?
3. Do your findings apply to talent ID programs?

As individual coaches, questions 1 and 2 are perhaps more pertinent; however, for more developed practitioners looking to move into more management or leadership positions, question 3 is also important. Given the expertise of the various authors of chapters within this book, it’s worth us taking a closer look at some of the key topics and themes contained within.

What Does an Expert Look Like?

In the first chapter, Bruce Abernethy explores what expert performance looks like and how experts may differ from non-experts—aspects that are crucial in our understanding of developing sport expertise. Abernethy writes that, in sport, expert performance is characterized by factors such as:

• Pattern recognition and recall—experts are better than non-experts in recognizing or recalling patterns of play within sport. As an example, expert chess players can recognize key patterns of play, but this is highly specific; if the chess pieces are arranged randomly on the board, they are no better than beginners at determining what will happen next.

Experts are better than non-experts in recognizing or recalling patterns of play within sport, says @craig100m. Share on X

• The ability to multitask and undertake automatic movement—expert performers are much better at performing two sport-related tasks simultaneously than non-experts. In track and field, an expert relay runner would be better at receiving visual information as to the position of the incoming runner and simultaneously being able to run as fast as possible during the change than a non-expert.
• Superior sports-specific knowledge and tactics—experts understand more about performance in their sport than non-experts, and, as a result, can select better tactics and make better decisions, increasing the chances of success.
• Anticipation—experts are much better than beginners at anticipating what may happen within their unique sporting context. This can be crucial in sports such as football, where the player picks up cues from other players as to what might happen next—and hence is better prepared for it.

Expertise in sport is also highly specific; when standardized tests are used (e.g., a visual reaction time test or a test of general intelligence), experts often don’t outperform non-experts.

So how do we become experts?

The research, writes Abernethy, points to three key aspects (only one of which is under our control):

1. The time of year in which we’re born (the relative age effect—which, in track and field at least, becomes less important the older we get).
2. Where we grow up (growing up in less densely populated areas appears to increase the chances of sporting success).
3. The quality and type of practice we undertake.

Practice needs to be deliberate, which is defined as requiring concentrated physical and/or cognitive effort undertaken with the specific goal of improving performance. This definition is important, because it suggests such practice is somewhat unenjoyable—something we will return to later.

Practice needs to be deliberate, which is defined as requiring concentrated physical and/or cognitive effort undertaken with the specific goal of improving performance, says @craig100m. Share on X

If practice is crucial, how do we as coaches set the environment for the development of expertise? Here is what Abernethy suggests:

1. Utilize training that addresses the limiting factors of performance—practice is only likely to be beneficial if it is directly aimed at developing factors that are limiting to the athlete’s performance. This means that we need to:
   • Understand what factors are required for success.
   • Understand where the athlete currently sits on these factors.
   • Understand how to actually improve these things.
2. Utilize perceptual training (where relevant)—if a key driver of expertise is pattern recall and recognition to support decision-making, then enhancing the perception skills of the athlete is highly important. At the simplest level, this involves exposure to a large and varied number of potential situations, allowing the athlete to build up a “mental library” of situations and potential outcomes—and test these outcomes—to optimize their expertise.
3. Utilize variety and diversity—as highlighted above, exposure to various different scenarios enhances an athlete’s expertise.
4. Maximizing practice opportunities—if practice is crucial to the development of expertise, then we need to ensure developing athletes can get as much as is optimal. This requires good access to facilities, good coaching, and a peer group willing to practice (which includes play) with the athlete.
5. Create experiences that encourage strategic skill development—one potential reason why athletes from smaller towns or cities may be more likely to have adult success is that they have to start competing against adults earlier. This means that they need to develop the strategic skills required to beat “better” opponents and can’t rely on their physical skills. Exposure to challenging competition is, therefore, an important aspect of developing expert performers.

How do We Develop Elite Athletes as Skilled Performers?

Following Abernethy’s introduction, the book moves into section one, which looks at developing elite athletes. In the first chapter of this section, Jean Cote and Jessica Fraser-Thomas explore how, if accumulation of practice is a driver of expert performance, this changes over the athlete’s career. This is an important discussion primarily because early on, the deliberate practice research was interpreted to indicate that athletes should specialize very early in order accumulate the required volumes of practice; however, research across many sports, especially track and field, actually suggests the opposite: late specialization is probably best for adult elite performance.

This research, which appears (on the surface at least) to oppose the 10,000 hours “rule,” led Cote and his research colleagues to develop the Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP). This model outlines the three stages of an athlete’s development towards adult elite performance: the sampling years (age 6-12), where the future athlete plays many different sports, often in an unstructured play format; the specializing years (ages 13-15), where the athlete starts to focus on a smaller number of sports; and then the investment years (from age 16 onwards), where the athlete commits to (usually) one sport, and begins to undertake deliberate practice.

Cote’s research, and that of others, ultimately suggests that early diversification moving towards increased specialization and deliberate practice with increased age is the most optimal way to develop expert performers.

In the next chapter, Joe Baker and Steve Cobley provide some guidelines for implementing deliberate practice into our daily coaching practices, specifically:

1. When designing a long-term training plan, consider the role of deliberate practice—this suggests considering maximizing the time we get with the athletes we work with, focusing on quality of practice, and considering how each individual training session fits into the bigger picture of the previous and upcoming week, month, and year.
2. Be wary of the negative consequences of deliberate practice—by definition, deliberate practice takes effort and is not that enjoyable. As such, regular breaks of play or non-deliberate practice may be helpful in maintaining the freshness of athletes.
3. Develop a strategic plan for training—it’s important to know what drives performance success in your sport, what “elite” looks like, and where the athletes you work with compare to this “elite” state. Being strategic about this process can set you up for future success.
4. Monitor training stress to prevent training ineffectiveness—if an athlete is not in an optimized state to adapt to the training they’re undertaking, then the time spent will be ineffective. Having a good idea of the adaptive potential of the athlete via monitoring should assist in ensuring that any training they do undertake can be as effective as possible.

If an athlete is not in an optimized state to adapt to the training they’re undertaking, then the time spent will be ineffective, says @craig100m. Share on X

For readers interested in further understanding how to move from the theory of deliberate practice to using it in practice, I’d highly recommend this article on “operationalizing” deliberate practice in sport.

Building on this, Bradley Young and Nikola Medic explore how coaches can develop long-term commitment in their athletes—something that is clearly important given the high levels of effort and low levels of enjoyment of deliberate practice. There is surprisingly little research on this topic, but Young and Medic identify some key themes that coaches can utilize to, in their words, take athletes “from the backyard to the big show.” The first of these themes is supporting an individual’s quest for competence and mastery, with the advice being that coaches should find ways to enhance an athlete’s perception of competence. Athletes who have a task-oriented motivation (as opposed to ego-oriented), appear to be more likely to seek out mastery and competence. There are some key ways to do this, including:

1. Ensuring successful experiences—successful adult athletes appear to have been offered more opportunities to experience success in training during their developmental years. As such, coaches may wish to simplify drills, challenges, or competition rules to better match the developmental stage of the athlete.
2. Provide successful role models—when athletes observe a successful performance from someone else, it can increase their feelings of persistence. This is especially true when the skill is new to the athlete, and the model is of a similar age and level of competence—the message being “if you can do this, I can too.” Through the use of video review, athletes can also serve as their own role models by watching themselves deliver a successful performance to develop their own feelings of competence.
3. Provide verbal persuasion—if coaches are trustworthy, credible, and thought to be in possession of their own expertise, then the messages they provide to athletes are much more likely to be listened to and used by the athlete to change their behavior towards mastery.

When designing training sessions in support of feelings of competence, it’s important for coaches to focus on supporting athletes in learning the processes of performance, as opposed to highlighting a successful competitive outcome, as this allows athletes to develop task-oriented, as opposed to ego-oriented, motivation.

Coaches can do this using the TARGET framework:

• Task Design—use drills that are varied and diverse.
• Autonomy—involve the athlete in the learning process.
• Recognition—provide positive feedback for good practice habits; doing this in private supports development of task orientation, while doing in front of a large group increases feelings of ego orientation.
• Grouping—placing athletes into groups may promote ego orientation (due to competition); instead, a focus on individual or small-group drills may be beneficial.
• Evaluation—athletes should be supported in their ability to self-evaluate their development.
• Timing—Due to differences in learning speed, the time allocated for the completion of a practice task should be flexible and relevant to each athlete.

The second key theme highlighted by Young and Medic is that long-term motivation in athletes depends on their ability to self-regulate; i.e., they develop their own motivation to practice. This is done by providing positive reinforcement when the athlete exhibits a desirable behavior—in this case, self-directed practice. This can be done via parents (who instill a sense of routine around practice, along with a value for sport and high expectations); coaches (with research demonstrating coaches who take a special interest in the athlete; offer praise, approval, and tangible rewards; and monitor and track progress—for example, by a training log—are more likely to support the self-regulation of athletes); and other key peers.

Long-term motivation in athletes depends on their ability to self-regulate, says @craig100m. Share on X

The third and final theme is that expert motivation requires a progressive commitment to one sport. Similar to the DMSP model, the Sport Commitment Model highlights that attractive alternatives are a key factor that is negatively related to commitment. As such, future expert performers need to progressively focus their motivation towards fewer and fewer options as they develop, but those diverse sport experiences early in their development are still crucial for the development of expertise.

The Coach as an Expert Performer

So far, we’ve focused on athletes, but it’s clear that coaches can also develop expertise. This is the topic of Chapter 6 of Developing Sport Expertise, from Sean Horton and James Deakin. The first issue here is defining what “expertise” is from a coaching standpoint. We tend to judge coaches on the performances of their athletes, but clearly there are some big issues with this approach. Instead, Horton and Deakin take a different approach, asking two main questions:

1. What do expert coaches see that others don’t?

Research across a variety of sports highlights that expert coaches can extract more information from what they see and provide better solutions in feedback to the athletes they work with—something that is true of experts across a variety of domains.

2. What do expert coaches do that non-experts don’t?

Research observing expert coaches suggests they spend the majority of practice time (60%) observing performance. The reminder of the practice time is spent on instruction (32%) and everything else (8%).

With these questions in mind, we can draw some key themes to support our own coaching:

1. Expert coaches are very good at designing effective practice sessions—they employ key sporting principles that utilize deliberate practice to enhance performance. At the highest level, the majority of coaching is only going to make small refinements (given that elite athletes are already experts) or find areas to develop that their competitors haven’t considered. Expert coaches tend to be able to do more with the limited practice time they have available—i.e., they don’t waste time at practice.
2. Expert coaches develop drills that simulate competitive scenarios—they focus on being able to prepare their athletes to demonstrate their expertise in the competitive arena. They are also able to support their athletes to perform when under pressure via the use of simulation in training.
3. Expert coaches deliver a suitable practice environment—they match high standards with emotional warmth to support the development of the athletes they work with.

Designing Effective Practice

As highlighted by Horton and Deakin in their chapter, an important role for coaches in the development of expert athletes is based around designing and delivering effective practice sessions. This aspect is the focus of the later chapters of the book. Rich Masters authored a chapter on implicit skill learning in athletes, with the key takeaway being that the use of metaphors to guide athletes in their skill development is highly effective—in part because it reduces “internalizing” the movement, and so prevents overthinking.

An important role for coaches in the development of expert athletes is based around designing and delivering effective practice sessions, says @craig100m. Share on X

This links to the next chapter, from Robin Jackson and Sian Beilock, on performing under pressure—a key skill for all expert performers. One risk factor for this is thinking too much, hence the potential importance of implicit skill learning. Finally, Jae Patterson and Timothy Lee have a chapter on how to organize practice, with the key take aways for coaches being the importance of providing a variety of feedback types and utilizing observational learning.

The Future?

The final chapter from Janet Starkes explores the past, present, and future of sport expertise research and practice. This is interesting because of the predictions made; as this book is now just over 15 years old, we can look to see how many of these have come true. Starkes makes four key predictions; the first is that web-casting will become economically feasible and technologically easy, making virtual conferences and meetings much more likely. As the last couple of years have shown, this is now the case, and we’re arguably much better connected because of it.

The second prediction highlighted the need for greater information sharing between coaches and sport scientists. It’s hard to tell whether this gap has been closed; there is still tension between some coaches and sports scientists, while some manage that relationship really well. As the team around the athlete inevitably grows over the coming years, sports scientists being able to develop the softer skills to effectively work within a team will become even more important, as well the ability of the coach to welcome outside input.

The third prediction from Starkes is the need to redefine what high performance is; as masters sports become increasingly popular, we are going to see high performance athletes of ever-increasing ages. Understanding how to develop their expertise will support them in their athletic pursuits. Finally, Starkes writes that the gap between haves and have-nots in sports is likely to widen; countries with more money to allocate to sports are likely to pull away from their less-rich competitors, especially in sports where technology is important.

To a large extent, this has been proven right. For example, in technology-driven sports like cycling, economically developed nations tend to dominate. However, in sports where overall costs are lower—such as athletics—we’ve actually seen an increased distribution of medals across countries, something that is very pleasing to see.

Final Thoughts

As I said in the introduction, I’ve never really thought of elite performance as “expert” performance, and so this book has been a bit of a paradigm shift for me. The key point to me is how we design training sessions to support the development of expertise in our athletes, with this expertise showing itself as the athlete being able to deliver a successful performance under pressure.

The key point to me is how we design training sessions to support the development of expertise in our athletes, says @craig100m. Share on X

This then opens the door to a better understanding of skill acquisition and how it might transfer to coaching in track and field, along with ideas such as representative design in which we ensure that training sessions mimic what happens in competition. This requires us to adequately understand what actually happens in competitions; this sounds obvious, but do we really know what happens in races, especially those where tactics come into play? If we can get to this point, and if we can adequately operationalize the principles of deliberate practice, we should be able to successfully develop expert performers. This book, for me, is the first step on this journey.

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

One of the most important components to any training program is the intent with which the movements are performed. You can have the “best” program with the world’s top technology, but if the drills are being performed with lackluster intent, long-term results will be minimal at best. One of the most effective ways to maximize intent is to find ways to measure what you’re doing. A big thing I’ve added to my training programs over the last year is more consistent measurements and specifically drills that can be measured.

A big thing I’ve added to my training programs over the last year is more consistent measurements and specifically drills that can be measured, says @JoeyBergles. Share on X

I work primarily with junior high and high school athletes (12-18 years old). When a sprint is being timed, a medicine ball throw distance is being recorded, or a jump distance is being measured, the intent of the subsequent drills goes up substantially. It’s a very reductionist statement, but that is what will drive adaptations. For me, if I can have drills done with a consistently high level of focus and intent, I feel confident that long-term progress will be made.

Making It Work in the High School Setting

Now, the difficulty with this concept is that, like most high school S&C coaches, I’m working with anywhere from 30-110 athletes at one time. This obviously presents some unique challenges, especially when you don’t have interns or a sports science department.

I’ve had to find some unique ways to structure things so that there’s good flow and we’re still able to measure what I want to get measured. There might be a circuit where we’ve got four different drills going with 100 athletes. That doesn’t mean that every drill is getting measured and recorded, but in that example, there might be a jump distance measured, a sprint being timed, and then two other drills that make up the rest of the circuit.

I do different types of medicine ball throws, different sprint variations (acceleration and MaxV), and various types of jumps (both horizontal and vertical). There are some things measured weekly and others that might only be measured a couple times a year. The benefit of this, though, is that I can look back to last year and see, for example, what an athlete’s seven-hop distance was—even if we haven’t done it in six months.

I keep a digital record board in my weight room for both boys and girls. The following are the tests on display:

• Vertical jump
• Broad jump
• 2+10-yard sprint
• Flying 10-yard (boys: 30-yard build; girls: 20-yard build)
• Medicine ball overhead throw (6-pound MB)
• Curve sprint (custom – standardized)

What I’ve Dropped

This all leads into what I’ve dropped out of my program, which makes all of the above possible: I no longer personally record numbers. All of the measurements that are tracked within our S&C program are 100% the responsibility of each individual athlete. We’re lucky to have the software that we do that makes that possible, but even if we didn’t have it, I would find a way to use Google Sheets or something similar.

I no longer personally record numbers. All of the measurements that are tracked within our S&C program are 100% the responsibility of each athlete, says @JoeyBergles. Share on X

As coaches, we always hear about “the process,” and a big part of my process involves athletes taking ownership of their respective performance numbers. If I ask an athlete what their best vertical jump is, I don’t want them to have to look at a sheet that says what that number is. I want them to know what it is, because if they know what it is, that means it matters to them—and when something matters to someone, they generally work harder and perform the work with more intent.

Also, when they’re doing that test, if they hit a PR, they instantly know it. That’s the long-term process since there won’t be PRs every session. When they do happen, though, it means something. It means all the work they’ve been putting in has led to a specific result.

In addition to junior high and high school, I work with younger kids, and I’ve got fourth graders who can tell me the time for the best flying 10-yards they’ve ever run (which likely happened six weeks ago, not yesterday). If 10-year-olds can remember something, I don’t believe it’s a stretch to think that most high school athletes can remember what their best performance numbers are.

I’ll give two examples regarding how athletes recording their own performance numbers works in practice:

1. 1. Vertical Jump. First off, we use jump mats. I either have vertical jumps performed with our main movement or after they come into the weight room following speed/plyometric work. The athlete steps on the jump mat and jumps. Either a coach or a player calls out their number is (e.g., 30.6 inches). The athlete is told what their jump was. They then go into the system for that day and input their vertical jump number into the system. If they know coming into that session that their best vertical jump was 30.2 inches, they instantly know they hit an all-time PR, which is a big deal.

 

1. Flying 10-Yard. We use Freelap and have 20 chips. Athletes run their flying 10-yard. A coach stands at the end of the run and calls the time that the athletes ran while they’re coasting out of the sprint. Normally, we run anywhere from 1-3 reps. I tell the athletes to remember what their best time of that session was, and then they input that number into the system. Say coming into that session their all-time best was 1.03 seconds, and they run 1.06 and 1.02; that 1.02 was better than they’ve ever run before, so again, another PR.

I like to think I’m pretty detail-oriented. With testing, there are a lot of details that can be overlooked that affect the results of the test, such as taking a small approach step on a jump or starting 2 inches behind the line on a 2+10-yard sprint. (Two yards is the fly zone—any additional distance affects the subsequent time and now makes the test unstandardized.)

These are all things I routinely bring up with my athletes, so that when they’re performing the tests, we’re always standardized. First and foremost, I want accurate information. That allows us to see long-term trends. When I look at a piece of data from eight months ago, I need to assume that data is accurate and the test was performed how it should be.

I’ll be honest, this is a huge challenge when dealing with hundred of athletes. With that said, though, I had (85) eighth grade girls do this exact thing with their broad jump and vertical jump numbers. It saves so much time and allows so many more tests to be performed on a regular basis.

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

Single-leg squats, lunges, or a traditional squat? There is an ongoing discussion about what will bring your athlete the best sport-specific result. The arguments are valid and robust for both the unilateral proponents and the bilateral enthusiasts.

The traditional squat, pegged as “the king of leg exercises,” allows the whole system to be overloaded to push adaptation, releases anabolic hormones, teaches both sides to work together, and is often used to build base strength and muscle development. Opponents would argue it is not sport-specific in many cases, causes too much spine loading, and increases the risk of injury—especially in those unfamiliar with the proper technique. Add in differences in force production (bilateral deficit or facilitation) and muscle activation (changes in co-activation), and the answers become murkier as to what is the “best.”

I’ve always followed the notion that there are very few wrong exercises, just different applications. Furthermore, there is probably no “best” option, just better solutions. Share on X

I’ve always followed the notion that there are very few wrong exercises, just different applications. Furthermore, there is probably no “best” option, just better solutions. At face value, positioning the body and executing exercises in the movement you want to improve seems to make sense, and research would also support this.^1,2 Squats are standard options for enhancing strength and power in double leg performances like rowing and skiing. Walking lunges are typical in building muscle power for running, and single-leg squats for cutting and traditional lunges for deceleration are other common exercise prescriptions for proponents of unilateral training.

But do they replicate the muscle activation patterns you expect them to mimic?

Having a curious mind, I wanted to investigate this further to get some more insight into how these exercises train (or don’t train) the involved muscles. To keep things relatively simple, I took a comparative approach. I looked at muscle activation via EMG monitoring (FREEEMG, BTS Bioengineering) and kinematic (approximate center of mass acceleration and velocity (G-Sensor, BTS Bioengineering)) measurements between the bilateral squat and various unilateral exercises.

The Results

With the results compared as a ratio of the highest EMG amplitude achieved in the given muscle during all the exercises, you can immediately see the increases in amplitude during the concentric phase, which is about the last 40% of the movement.

When looking at many squiggly lines, it can be tough to draw significant conclusions. Restating the differences as mean averages during the concentric portion allows a narrower focus—the one caveat is that the forward lunge had an overall shorter activation period than the other exercises.

Video 1. The forward lunge, showing acceleration, velocity, and muscle activation during one repetition. Red is vastus lateralis, green is gluteus maximus, purple is adductor longus, and yellow is semitendinosus in millivolts.

Shorter, higher-intensity bursts of activity achieved in the glute max, semitendinosus, and adductor longus—as seen in the forward lunge—could have a different training effect on the muscles. For simplicity’s sake, we will assume that the mean activation is a reasonable representation of muscle activity during the concentric phase.

Differences in amplitude are generally related to the tension the nervous system believes the muscle needs to generate to cause the required movement. Working backward, the amount of weight you choose and your exercise technique have an influence. I wanted to make sure the load on the lead leg was similar in all the movements, so I used a vertical force platform to measure the ground reaction force in the lowest part of the movement.

The unilateral exercises required an additional 60 pounds to counteract the unloading effect of the back leg, except for the Bulgarian squat (50 pounds). This extra weight put me in the same ballpark as the leg in the single-leg squat and presumably the bilateral squat. The added resistance for the unilateral exercises resulted in roughly an 8 to 10 rep max. Could I have gone heavier with an enthusiastic coach cheering me on? Possibly.

Another explanation for differences in amplitude between these compound movements is that coordination among muscle groups could differ in lunge variations versus squat variations. Other than the split squat and forward lunge, the exercises showed higher gluteus maximus activation, which may have assisted in decreasing the force-generating requirements of the quadriceps group. Combine this with lower co-activation in the hamstring muscles and a center of mass that shifts forward; the force required from the quads may have been less to complete the movement. Aspects of this and how it affects the bilateral deficit regarding muscle coordination are detailed in an article by Enrico Rejc et al.³

With aiming for the amount of vertical ground reaction force to be similar, one might expect comparable activation levels. However, some research has shown higher activation in unilateral over bilateral movements.⁴ Interestingly, the bilateral deficit does not occur in all athletes. Bilateral facilitation, where the force of both legs during a bilateral exercise exceeds the sum of the unilateral movements, is often seen in weightlifters, powerlifters, rowers, and downhill skiers, to name a few.⁵ Evidence reinforces this notion that you build strength in the specific way you train and move.

Training with unilateral movements appears to carry over by enhancing the bilateral deficit, which seems to improve unilateral power production and change of direction ability but not necessarily linear speed.⁶ One caution is that it does not seem to relate to the total number of unilateral exercises performed in the training period.⁷ The adage here would imply quality over quantity, so choose your unilateral exercises carefully and don’t necessarily think the more unilateral exercises, the better.

The more critical issue here is that each athlete can have different intra- and inter-muscle coordination patterns based on training history and genetic makeup. Share on X

The more critical issue here is that each athlete can have different intra- and inter-muscle coordination patterns based on training history and genetic makeup. In the past, I have been surprised at how similar coordination patterns can be in the same individual across a wide variety of exercises despite the exercise having different movement patterns.

Overall, quad muscle activity was similar to slightly lower between the squat and the unilateral exercise. Also, the single-leg squat resulted in higher vastus medialis activity at the beginning of the concentric movement during the propulsion stage. The unilateral training resulted in lower rectus femoris activation, possibly because of the more significant forward lean.

On average, biceps femoris activation was lower, along with slightly lower muscle activity in semitendinosus. The hip stabilizers (glute max, glute med, and hip adductors) tended to be greater in unilateral exercises (particularly glute med) than in the bilateral squat. We often see this pattern in the literature, most likely due to unilateral movements requiring more significant hip and knee stabilization.^8,9

This last point got me wondering if that activation was enough to cause an actual training effect. Although the difference in muscle activation may have statistical significance, does it have physiological significance? In other words, were those muscles working as hard as a typical “work set” of 8 to 10 reps that we might prescribe for regular strength or muscle development? Can we expect to switch from squats to a single-leg squat and still adequately strengthen the hip stabilizers enough to withstand the high loads experienced during competition?

Can we expect to switch from squats to a single-leg squat and still adequately strengthen the hip stabilizers enough to withstand the high loads experienced during competition? Share on X

This last notion keeps me up at night, so to put my suspicions to rest and for better sleep for all coaches, I put it to the test.

Are the Muscles Getting the Right Amount of Stimulation?

If we assume that a set of 8–10 reps to failure is enough to cause strength gains, and the resultant muscle activation is a decent gauge of that intensity (generally accepted, but not without debate^10,11), my next step was to compare unilateral isolation-type exercises on the examined muscles once again to the bilateral squat at the same intensity.

The following charts show muscle activation in the selected exercises compared to traditional squats. Also, as we mentioned previously, keep in mind that the forward lunge had a shorter concentric propulsion phase with briefer muscle activity. This would cause the mean values for the forward lunge to be lower because of similar periods but shorter bursts of muscle activity.

When looking at the difference between directly training the abductors (glute med), there is no contest comparing cable adduction to the traditional squat. Previously, we saw that the single-leg squat had approximately 200% greater activity than squats during the lifting portion and was most likely acting in a limited range as a stabilizer. Focusing on training the glute med with cable abduction had pushed activation to well over 350%, which is nearly double how it behaved in the single-leg movement. Granted, in this case, it was more of a dynamic motion across a more extensive range that can give greater values, but also may be more representative of how it behaves during lateral movements.

There was less of a difference in glute max activation among all the exercises where it played an active role in the movement. In the forward lunge, although the glute max had the most significant peak EMG amplitude from the line graphs, it had the lowest MEAN activation (remember the length of the concentric period as it drove the body back to the starting position). Single-leg and Bulgarian squats, along with reverse lunges (and most likely forward lunges), were similar to the two types of kickbacks, probably because they were already reasonably active in the squat. Perhaps statistically significant, but was it physiologically important?

Hip adduction resulted in a much higher increase in the activation of the adductor longus (over four times greater mean activation) compared to the squat and more than any of the unilateral exercises.

It is intriguing and perhaps meaningful that the lunges resulted in 50% less activation in the rectus femoris for the lead leg. Share on X

Squats were still the leader in quad activation for all the relevant exercises. The exceptions were for vastus medialis in the single-leg squat and rectus femoris in the leg extension. It is intriguing and perhaps meaningful that the lunges resulted in 50% less activation in the rectus femoris for the lead leg. If this is physiologically relevant, it may be good to include exercises that challenge this muscle specifically; however, it is also possible that the rear supporting leg (which was not assessed) may have had more activation in the rectus femoris than the front leg. Whether this level of lower activation in the front leg would increase the risk of injury or impede hip flexion would be an excellent question to ask.

The other finding of interest was the relatively low activation level of the hamstrings during the compound movements versus the single-leg curl exercise and kickback exercises. The lower level of the semitendinosus could be of significant interest to those looking to avoid ACL injury. Although research appears to be sparse, at least one study I came across suggests that the medial hamstrings (of which the semitendinosus is one) could play a role in stabilizing the knee.¹²

Muscles Creating Movement

With a better understanding of how the muscles are activating to produce force, we can pull it together to see how the body accelerates through unilateral and bilateral exercises.

In the propulsion stage of any movement, you will see increasing force typically at the lowest center of mass, both at the end of the eccentric phase and at the beginning of the concentric phase. We hope to mimic this in specific strength training to match the movement’s knee, hip, and ankle angles. However, force production is also the coordination of agonists working together while antagonists relax. Since most unilateral leg exercises focus on vertical force, lateral force production suffers, resulting in less influence on change of direction (COD).¹³

Side lunges and other resisted lateral movements combined with gameplay-specific drills would help address this aspect for improving COD. The forward lunge showed the highest side-to-side and frontward changes in acceleration and velocity from our exercises, with the reverse lunge coming in a distant second.

Trying to get game-specific velocities in the gym can be problematic, if not impossible, for many sports. Therefore, focusing on the rate of force development can be a wise choice. Currently, there is a need for more specific research to confirm the benefits of choosing unilateral or bilateral exercises and the effect on speed and RFD. Still, the safe assumption is it develops from both approaches,¹⁴ mainly when the focus is on the intention to move quickly.¹⁵

Generally, bilateral movements can generate higher velocities through a similar range of motion, partly because they require less balance. Speeds were not vastly different in our case, as there was no intention to move as quickly as possible. Additionally, during many lower-body unilateral strength movements, the center of mass often shifts forward, closer to the knee, as the athlete leans forward, reducing the torque on the knee.

This motion minimizes the force the quadriceps muscles need to generate, and we can see the lower activation levels that reinforce this idea. The upside is that our unilateral movements are improving proprioception and getting closer to the requirements of the sport. The downside is that they could be unloading the quadriceps in both the eccentric and concentric ranges of motion, which is the opposite of the demands of producing higher forces during the propulsion stage.

Applying Unilateral and Bilateral Training for Sport

If your goal is to transfer appropriate force production during unilateral-type sports (running, throwing, field events, etc.), you should incorporate unilateral strength movements during the appropriate phase closer to the season. Unilateral exercises give the most significant crossover benefit during the first 6-8 weeks, with diminishing returns for more extended periods. Therefore, using these during the final prep phases would be wise, as long-term use probably does not improve the result.¹⁶

Unless your athletes spend a significant amount of time moving up and down, you would want to choose strength exercises, plyometrics, and drills that emphasize horizontal movement for training change of direction.¹⁷ Although the ability to move quickly to decelerate and change direction should improve with unilateral training, linear speed may not.¹⁸ To be able to outrun or catch your opponents, stick with the basics—good old actual sprint training to pull it all together.¹⁹

When assessing bilateral strength levels, differences of around 10% between left and right limbs are considered normal. With differences that are greater than 15%, the concern for injury arises, as well as how it may ultimately affect performance. More specifically, the power production for the side that is less than the other may impair performance on that weaker side, though only to a certain point. Once critical power has reached a certain power threshold, it does not seem to be as big of a factor for performance.²⁰ If there’s too great of an imbalance in strength and power below threshold levels (greater than 15%), you may get to the point where one side may overpower the other.

In addition, it appears unilateral training has its most significant effect on younger and more inexperienced athletes. As an athlete improves skill and execution with increased experience, their ability to transfer existing strength and power to performance improves, and unilateral exercise may have a less significant role in improving stabilization.¹⁴ Spending more time on bilateral movements to increase overall strength appears to make sense for elite athletes. Of course, someone who has been competing for years may also have to balance their training to decrease the risk or irritation of injuries, so there is still a role in unilateral training from this perspective.

Takeaways

The biggest takeaway from what we have learned is that you should be cautious in prescribing unilateral exercises to adequately train the quads and hip stabilizers. Strength routines should include direct work for the hip stabilizers and the hamstrings, and coaches should not rely on unilateral exercises to achieve this. It does not appear, at least in this case, that these muscles would get enough stimuli to get proportionally stronger or hypertrophy at fast enough rates with the exercises we examined. An analogy would be doing biceps curls and expecting your shoulders, rotator cuffs, upper back, and chest to respond. Probably not that effective.

Strength routines should include direct work for the hip stabilizers and the hamstrings, and coaches should not rely on unilateral exercises to achieve this. Share on X

It’s important to remember that strength changes in individual muscles can also affect muscle coordination patterns, affecting force production. Coordination patterns can adapt, either positively or negatively, based on the force production capabilities of the muscles. However, our case study was just one individual, and we would expect that not everyone will have this specific result.

As with almost everything in life, moderation and variety keep the needle moving forward, so training your athlete’s newfound strength requires specific drills and lots of actual game play to complete the transfer. Starting with building overall strength and muscle development during the off-season with bilateral movements and focused work for the hip stabilizers establishes the foundation for more specific work with unilateral strength movements. Unilateral training also appears to be most relevant for those in the early stages of their athletic careers. Incorporating movement-specific drills and real-life performances should help complete the transfer as the season progresses.

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. Reilly, T., Morris, T., and Whyte, G. “The Specificity of Training Prescription and Physiological Assessment: A Review.” Journal of Sports Sciences. 2009;27(6):575–589.

2. Cronin, J., McNair, P.J., and Marshall, R.N. “Velocity Specificity, Combination Training and Sport Specific Tasks.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 2001;4(2):168–178.

3. Rejc, E., Lazzer, S., Antonutto, G., Isola, M., and di Prampero, P.E. “Bilateral Deficit and EMG Activity During Explosive Lower Limb Contractions Against Different Overloads.” European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2009,108(1),157–165.

4. Botton, C.E., Radaelli, R., Wilhelm, E.N., Rech, A., Brown, L.E., and Pinto, R.S. “Neuromuscular Adaptations to Unilateral Vs. Bilateral Strength Training in Women.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2016;30(7):1924–1932.

5. Škarabot, J., Cronin, N., Strojnik, V., and Avela, J. “Bilateral Deficit in Maximal Force Production.” European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2016;116(11-12):2057–2084.

6. Bishop, C., Berney, J., Lake, J., et al. “Bilateral Deficit During Jumping Tasks: Relationship With Speed and Change of Direction Speed Performance.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2019;35(7):1833–1840.

7. Nicholson, G. and Masini, D. “Bilateral Deficit: Relationships with Training History and Functional Performance.” Kinesiology. 2021;53(1):86–94.

8. Muyor, J.M., Martin-Fuentes, I., Rodriguez-Ridao, D., and Antequera-Vique, J.A. “Electromyographic Activity in the Gluteus Medius, Gluteus Maximus, Biceps Femoris, Vastus Lateralis, Vastus Medialis and Rectus Femoris During the Monopodal Squat, Forward Lunge and Lateral Step-Up Exercises.” PloS One. 2020,15(4),e0230841–e0230841.

9. McCurdy, K., O’Kelley, E., Kutz, M., Langford, G., Ernest, J., and Torres, M. “Comparison of Lower Extremity EMG Between the 2-Leg Squat and Modified Single-Leg Squat in Female Athletes.” Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 2010;19(1):57–70.

10. Vigotsky, A.D., Halperin, I., Trajano, G.S., and Vieira, T.M. “Longing for a Longitudinal Proxy: Acutely Measured Surface EMG Amplitude Is Not a Validated Predictor of Muscle Hypertrophy.” Sports Medicine. 2022;52(2):193–199.

11. Vigotsky, A.D., Halperin, I., Lehman, G.J., Trajano, G.S., and Vieira, T.M. “Interpreting Signal Amplitudes in Surface Electromyography Studies in Sport and Rehabilitation Sciences.” Frontiers in Physiology. 2017;8:985.

12. Toor, A.S., Limpisvasti, O., Ihn, H.E., McGarry, M.H., Banffy, M., and Lee, T.Q. “The Significant Effect of the Medial Hamstrings on Dynamic Knee Stability.” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2018;27(8):2608–2616.

13. Bishop, C., Berney, J., Lake, J., Loturco, I., Blagrove, R., Turner, A., and Read, P. “Bilateral Deficit During Jumping Tasks: Relationship With Speed and Change of Direction Speed Performance.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2019;35(7):1833–1844.

14. Moran, J., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Liew, B., et al. “Effects of Bilateral and Unilateral Resistance Training on Horizontally Orientated Movement Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Sports Medicine. 2020;51(2):225–242.

15. Wirth, K., Keiner, M., Szilvas, E., Hartmann, H., and Sander, A. “Effects of Eccentric Strength Training on Different Maximal Strength and Speed-Strength Parameters of the Lower Extremity.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2015;29(7):1837–1845.

16. Nicholson, G. and Masini, D. “Bilateral Deficit: Relationships with Training History and Functional Performance.” Kinesiology. 2021;53(1):86–94.

17. Brughelli, M., Cronin, J., Levin, G., and Chaouachi, A. “Understanding Change of Direction Ability in Sport: A Review of Resistance Training Studies.” Sports Medicine. 2008;38(12):1045–1063.

18. Bishop, C., Berney, J., Lake, J., et al. “Bilateral Deficit During Jumping Tasks: Relationship With Speed and Change of Direction Speed Performance.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2019;35(7):1833–1840.

19. Lockie, R.G., Murphy, A.J., Schultz, A.B., Knight, T.J., and Janse de Jonge, X.A. “The Effects of Different Speed Training Protocols on Sprint Acceleration Kinematics and Muscle Strength and Power in Field Sport Athletes.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2012;26(6):1539–1550.

20. Hoffman, J.R., Ratamess, N.A., Klatt, M., Faigenbaum, A.D., and Kang, J. “Do Bilateral Power Deficits Influence Direction-Specific Movement Patterns?” Research in Sports Medicine. 2007;15(2):125–132.

By Gabriel Mvumvure and Kim Goss

Athletic fitness magazines are packed with result-producing weight training methods promising to make you faster, stronger, and more powerful. Some are quite effective. Unfortunately, however, many are nearly impossible to implement with large groups—and with the popularity of weight training in high schools and colleges, pretty much all groups are large.

One workout system we’ve found to improve the quality of our workouts at Brown University is cluster training. Cluster training significantly increases the intensity of a workout by prolonging the rest time between repetitions. The good news is that it’s easy to administer and doesn’t require special equipment. The bad news is that it’s often prescribed incorrectly, leading to less-than-spectacular results.

Although cluster training is associated with weight training, forms of it can be found in other sports, such as the mile run.

A mile breaks down to 1,760 yards or 1,609 meters. The first official world record for the mile was 4:14.4, set by John Paul Jones on May 31, 1913. For many years, a sub-four-minute mile was considered by the coaching and scientific community to be unattainable. For example, in a paper published in 1935, respected track coach Brutus Hamilton wrote a piece called “The Ultimate of Human Effort.” Supporting his opinion with impressive tables and statistics, Hamilton predicted the fastest mile possible would be 4:01.66.

Ten years later, the record dropped to 4:01.4, slightly exceeding Hamilton’s prediction. Nine years later, on May 6, 1954, Roger Bannister of the United Kingdom proved all the skeptics wrong by crossing the finish line in 3:59.4.

Just a month after Bannister’s historic run, Australia’s John Landy ran 3:58, and the number of athletes who have broken the four-minute barrier since then is nearly 2,000. Bannister’s achievement thus became the go-to story for motivational speakers about overcoming mental and physical obstacles. Another story is how Bannister did it.

(Lead photo of Daniel Sarisky by Brian McWalters)

The Need…for Speed!

As neuroscientist Harold L. Klawans explained in Why Michael Couldn’t Hit, Bannister determined that the best way to approach his event was to run each quarter-mile as close as possible to one minute, so he asked the announcer to broadcast his splits and recruited pacers. During his record-breaking run, Bannister passed the three-quarter mark at exactly three minutes.

In Bannister’s era, many elite distance coaches believed it was necessary to develop an aerobic base before working on speed. Bannister thought differently. According to Klawans, Bannister focused on developing speed with 60-second quarter-miles, then he worked on improving his endurance to maintain that speed for four separate quarter-miles. Let’s break down Bannister’s approach with an exaggerated example.

An elite runner who has a goal of running a four-minute mile could start by running four quarter-miles in 60 seconds each but walking one minute between each rep. Thus, with their first workout, this athlete would run a four-minute mile…it just took them eight minutes to do it! When that workout becomes easy, their rest periods between reps would be decreased to 55 seconds, and so on, until that athlete develops the speed-endurance to run a four-minute mile!

Roger Bannister prolonged the rest time between quarter-miles, thus increasing each lap’s intensity. Therefore, by definition, he was performing cluster training. Share on X

In the years before Bannister’s historic run, no one could exceed the speed of four continuous, 60-second laps. However, Bannister could by prolonging the rest time between quarter-miles, thus increasing the intensity of each lap. Therefore, by definition, Bannister was performing cluster training.

So, what does Bannister’s approach to running the mile have to do with sprinter faster and lifting weights? Let’s start by expanding on the definition of intensity.

The Power of the Pause

Whereas training intensity on the track is measured by speed, training intensity in the weight room is defined by how much weight is lifted. Intensity has nothing to do with the difficulty of a set or how it, as Hans and Franz would say, “pumps…you up!”

If an athlete bench presses 200 pounds for one rep, the intensity is higher than if that same athlete grinds out 185 pounds for eight reps and bursts blood vessels in their nose. Yes, the eight-rep set may be more mentally challenging and create a high level of fatigue, but the intensity level is lower than the 200 pounds lifted for a single because it’s a lighter weight. Here’s where cluster training comes in.

Let’s say an athlete can bench press 190 pounds for three reps. By resting 15 seconds between reps, the athlete could load the bar to 195 pounds and might be able to complete three reps. Again, heavier weights = greater intensity.

In our first video, Brown sprinter Jaiden Stokes is shown performing six reps in the chin-up, resting 10 seconds between reps—that’s one cluster set. The rest period begins when Stokes’ feet touch the bench. Brown Head Sprint Coach Gabriel Mvumvure counts down backward between reps in this manner: 10, 9, 8… 

Video 1. Cluster training for chin-ups.

To ensure the optimal stimulus is applied during each cluster, a training partner or coach should be recruited. A stopwatch is a nice addition, but most smartphones have a built-in timer. At Brown, a large clock is available near the platforms that athletes can use when flying solo. (And if you happen to play the piano and don’t mind annoying your teammates, bring your metronome to the gym to help you count.)

We used Stokes as an example for our video because many female athletes give up on chin-ups because it’s such a challenging exercise for them. By using cluster training, however, they can perform more reps than they could otherwise. However, our focus with chin-ups is on strength and not muscular endurance, so as soon as an athlete can complete at least six reps on their own, we start adding resistance with a special belt that holds weight plates.

Our focus with chin-ups is on strength, not muscular endurance, so as soon as an athletes can complete at least six reps on their own, we start adding resistance. Share on X

For example, Stokes has done 21 chin-ups non-stop, but during normal training, we keep her reps low and use resistance—as a result, she has done one rep with an additional 40 pounds. Stokes is not the exception. We’ve had several other female sprinters use this much weight or more, and several male sprinters use over 90 pounds of resistance. (At the end of the video, Brown sprinter Abayomi Lowe is shown performing a chin-up in strict form with 100 pounds.)

Sprinter Strength: It’s All Relative!

The origin of cluster training in the weight room is a bit of a mystery. About 50 years ago, bodybuilding icon Joe Weider popularized a form of inter-rep rest training for muscle building he called rest-pause. And in the 1940s, Body Culture magazine editor Henry J. Akins introduced the multi-poundage system, now known as drop sets. With drop sets, you perform a set to failure, reduce the weight, then perform additional sets with lighter weights. But that’s bodybuilding. For sprinters, we need to look at the work of the late Carl Miller.

Miller was the National Coaching Coordinator for USA Weightlifting and the head coach of the USA Weightlifting Team for the 1978 World Championships. In the ’70s, Miller made presentations at his training camps and wrote articles about using cluster training to improve the relative strength of a weightlifter.

Relative strength is the ratio of strength to body weight. If two people lift the same weight, the one who weighs less has greater relative strength. In a 2002 paper, sports scientist Igor Abramovsky warned that additional body weight for a weightlifter “…creates additional loading on the sportsman’s muscles because the weightlifter has to lift this excess weight during the execution of the weightlifting exercises; second, the sportsman’s speed deteriorates.” That speed also relates to sprinting.

Two ways a sprinter can run faster are by reducing the time they spend on the ground (ground contact time) and increasing the distance between each stride (stride length). Both can be achieved by becoming stronger. However, the sprinter wants to become stronger without increasing their body weight, even if that additional weight is muscle, because the extra weight will negatively affect their speed.

To prove our point, have a sprinter run 60 meters, then see how fast they run while wearing a 10-pound weight vest—even a 5-pound weight vest will make them run significantly slower. For longer distances, consider that extra body mass increases the stress on the cardiovascular system.

One advantage of cluster training over many other training systems is that no special setup is required. It’s not like supersets or tri-sets (i.e., performing multiple exercises in a circuit fashion), where several exercise stations often have to be reserved. Nor does it require special equipment such as chains, bands, or eccentric hooks. You simply manipulate the rest periods between the reps.

One advantage of cluster training over many other training systems is that no special setup is required. You simply manipulate the rest periods between the reps. Share on X

Numerous scientific studies have proven the value of using longer rest periods between sets to increase strength and power; we’ve included several of them in our reference section. For example, one 2012 study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning looked at force, velocity, and peak power output using no rest between reps, 20 seconds’ rest, and 40 seconds’ rest. The exercise tested was the power clean.

The bottom line was that the 20-second-rest group was superior to the no-rest group, and the 40-second group was superior to the 20-second group. However, rather than discussing fascinating topics such as the desensitizing of Golgi tendon organs, let’s focus on the practical applications of cluster training.

Cluster Training Basics

Some coaches consider cluster training an advanced training method that should only be used by athletes with several years of experience and high strength levels. One reason for this belief is that Miller would prescribe as many as five sets of clusters with seven singles in each cluster, a protocol that is quite harsh and requires relatively lighter weights to be prescribed.

We use a different approach at Brown, believing that nearly all levels of athletes can perform cluster training. To get you started, here are seven guidelines we follow with our sprinters for cluster training:

1. The length of the rest periods between reps is determined by the type of exercise. The more muscle mass involved in an exercise, and the more complex a movement, the more rest time needed. Whereas five seconds of rest between reps may be fine for chin-ups, you might need 30-45 seconds of rest between reps in the clean and push jerk to ensure optimal form.
2. The number of clusters is determined by the conditioning of the athlete. You wouldn’t start an absolute beginner with five sets of clusters because they wouldn’t be able to recover. In contrast, an elite athlete might achieve their best results with five sets of clusters.
3. The length of rest periods between clusters should be longer than with traditional sets. More rest is required between cluster sets. You wouldn’t perform max 60-meter sprints with 60-second rest intervals during a speed training workout, and likewise with cluster sets in the weight room. Whereas 2-3 minutes’ rest between sets may be fine for a conventional set of power cleans, 3-5 minutes’ rest may be necessary for cluster sets to maintain the highest intensity levels on subsequent sets.
4. The weight used in each cluster is influenced by the total number of reps in each cluster and the total number of clusters. For Miller’s hardest workouts, the percentages for snatches were 80-85% of 1-repetition maximum, and for clean and jerks, 77-82%. However, higher percentages can be used if fewer reps are performed in each cluster and fewer clusters are performed.

Use conventional sets to warm up for clusters. Perform enough sets with conventional sets to get you near a max effort, then proceed with cluster training. Share on X

5. Use conventional sets to warm up for clusters. Perform enough sets with conventional sets to get you near a max effort, then proceed with cluster training. For example, if you were to perform a cluster set using 200 pounds in an exercise (say, a deadlift), you might warm up as follows: 105 x 5, 135 x 4, 155 x 3, 175 x 2, and 190 x 1. Performing cluster sets for every warm-up set would create too much fatigue, reducing the amount of weight that could be used on the primary work sets.
6. Limit cluster training to one exercise per workout. Cluster training is especially taxing on the nervous system, and the quality of your workout would suffer if you tried to use it with several exercises in the same workout. An exception would be if the second exercise was for an upper-body exercise, such as chin-ups.
7. Make the first exercise the cluster set exercise. You want to use the heaviest weights in cluster sets, so clusters should be performed first in your workout when you are fresh. The exception is with smaller group exercises. For example, if using cluster sets on chin-ups, we would perform them after our major power and leg exercises, such as cleans and squats.

Pulling this together, Figure 1 shows an example of a workout with Brown sprinter Emma Gallant during her introduction to cluster training. Cluster training is performed during the last two sets of the first exercise, which is full cleans.

From the Blackboard to the Lifting Platform

One key to success in cluster training with beginners is to start conservatively, using longer rest periods and just one set. The following are examples of cluster training progressions in various exercises. For these progressions, the rest periods between sets are 3-5 minutes. Note that the rest periods decrease in the second variations, allowing the athlete to get accustomed to this type of training.

One key to success in cluster training with beginners is to start conservatively, using longer rest periods with just one set. Share on X

Chin-Ups

1 set x (3 reps, 3 reps) x 10 seconds’ rest between reps

2 sets x (3, 3, 3) x 5 seconds’ rest

3 sets x (3, 3, 3, 3) x 5 seconds’ rest

Power Clean

1 set x (2, 2) x 30 seconds’ rest

2 sets x (2, 2) x 20 seconds’ rest

3 sets x (2, 2, 2) x 20 seconds’ rest

Clean and Push Jerk

1 set x (1, 1) x 45 seconds’ rest

2 x sets (1, 1) x 30 seconds’ rest

3 x sets (1, 1, 1) x 30 seconds’ rest

One way to determine when an athlete is ready for more training volume (total reps x sets) in cluster training is by measuring barbell speed. For sprinters, you have to be careful not to let fatigue reduce bar speed to ensure optimal transfer to their sport. For more on this topic, see our article “Using Fast Eccentric Squats to Sprint Faster and Jump Higher.”

Bar speed can be measured using a velocity-based training (VBT) device to determine what’s known as the critical drop-off point. Such a device is shown by hurdler Brooke Ury squatting in the second video. Ury’s lift is followed by a conventional squat performed by Maddie Frey, a sprinter who this year broke the 32-year-old school record in the 200m.

Video 2. Velocity-based training with squats.

The critical drop-off point—a term attributed to the late track coach Charles Francis—occurs when the quality of an exercise degrades to the point where the muscle fibers being targeted are no longer being stimulated. For bodybuilding, the late strength coach Charles R. Poliquin said the critical drop-off point occurs with 20% diminishing returns. For relative strength training, he said the range is 5-7%. Let’s look at an example of how this approach works.

Let’s say a sprinter is performing barbell back squats, and the cluster training protocol is 3 x (1, 1, 1) x 30 seconds’ rest, with 4 minutes’ rest between sets. If the barbell speed during the ascent portion of the squats during the second cluster does not decrease by more than 7%, the athlete should perform the third set. However, if the bar speed decreases by more than 7%, the athlete should not perform the third set. This decrease in bar speed could also suggest that this athlete may be better off going back to conventional training until their conditioning level improves.

In our third video, Stokes (who has cleaned 165 pounds) cleans four reps with 20 seconds between reps. Note that rather than counting down every second in a rest period (which can be quite annoying), Coach Mvumvure waits until 10 seconds remain before counting down. If 30 seconds of rest were prescribed, he would note when 10 seconds have passed, then count down from 10.

Video 3. Cluster training for cleans.

For a sprinter, it’s important to select exercises for cluster training that give these athletes the most “bang for their buck.” Weightlifting movements (snatches, cleans, jerks, and so on….) are the number one choice. Powerful leg exercises such as front squats (a Brown favorite!) and deadlifts are also good choices. Poor choices would be bicep curls or any isolation movement designed to “pump…you up!”

For a sprinter, it’s important to select exercises for cluster training that give these athletes the most ‘bang for their buck.’ Share on X

Sprinting is a fast-twitch activity requiring the performance of high-intensity workouts, both on the track and in the weight room. Roger Bannister inspired us with his historic mile run and revolutionary training methods, so take advantage of his pioneering work and incorporate cluster training into your workouts!

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

Kim Goss has a master’s degree in human movement and is a volunteer assistant track coach at Brown University. He is a former strength coach for the U.S. Air Force Academy and was an editor at Runner’s World Publications. Along with Paul Gagné, Goss is the co-author of Get Stronger, Not Bigger! This book examines the use of relative and elastic strength training methods to develop physical superiority for women. It is available through Amazon.com.

References

Abramovsky, I. “A weightlifter’s excess bodyweight and sport results,” Olimp magazine, 1:28-29:2002. Translated by Andrew Charniga, www.sportivnypress.com.

Baack, LJ, ed. “The Sport of Track and Field: Flights of Fancy,” Chapter 4 in The Worlds of Brutus Hamilton, Tafnews Press, 1975.

García-Ramos, A., Padial. P., Haff, G.G., et al. “Effect of Different Interrepetition Rest Periods on Barbell Velocity Loss During the Ballistic Bench Press Exercise.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2015;29(9):2388–2396.

Hamilton, Brutus. “The Ultimate of Human Effort,” 1935.

Hardee, J.P., Triplett, N.T., Utter, A.C., Zwetsloot, K.A., and McBride, J.M. “Effect of interrepetition rest on power output in the power clean.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2012;26(4):883–889.

Klawans, Harold L. Why Michael Couldn’t Hit: And Other Tales of the Neurology of Sports. W H Freeman & Co., Sep 1, 1996, p. 203–214.

Miller, Carl. The Sport of Olympic-Style Weightlifting, Training for the Connoisseur. Sunstone Press, Apr 10, 2011, p. 87–90.

Oliver, J.M., Jagim, A.R., Sanchez, A.C., et al. “Greater gains in strength and power with intraset rest intervals in hypertrophic training.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2013;27(11):3116–3131.

Prestes, J., Tibana, R.A., da Cunha Nascimento, D., et al. “Strength and Muscular Adaptations Following 6 Weeks of Rest-Pause Versus Traditional Multiple-Sets Resistance Training on Trained Subjects.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2017;33(suppl. 1).

Schoenfeld, B.J., Pope, Z.K., Benik, F.M., et al. “Longer Interset Rest Periods Enhance Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Resistance-Trained Men.” The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2016;30(7):1805–1812.

When introducing certain qualities into strength and conditioning training programs, I’ve found it useful to stack (complex) and/or contrast them with other previously acquired abilities and movement skills. For athletes, this increases the rate and success of transferability to more sophisticated training protocols—and, inevitably, sport.

For example, an athlete who has mastered vertical medicine ball throws can recall and apply the extension that is required to efficiently maneuver through the first two pulls of an Olympic lift or weighted jump.

In this article, I will explain how and why I use the “Jump Matrix,” a concept and tool I acquired via social media from the phenomenal Sports Performance staff at Elon University. Additionally, I’ll cover:

• How we put it to work within a training program to develop and prepare the athletes I work with for multi-contact jumps, multi-directional jumps, and change of direction exercises.
• How this also leads to the more specific qualities and abilities that are foot and ankle stiffness, neuromuscular reactivity and force distribution changes, body awareness, and lower limb angles.

Key Terms

I always like to begin with definitions for clarity:

Jump – A plyometric (powerful and rapid stretch and contraction of muscles) activity that requires the athlete to jump and land on two feet – not to be confused with a hop or with single, same-leg jumping. Ex: vertical jump, broad jump.

Multi-Contact Jump – Jumps with repetitive take-offs and landings in-place or in various directions. Ex: consecutive vertical jump, triple broad jump.

Multi-Directional Jumps – Jumps with repetitive take-offs and landings that occur in various directions. Ex: Dot Drill, hourglass.

Change-of-Direction (CoD) – Various athletic movement patterns (running, shuffling, jumping) to and/or through various predetermined points that require virtually zero external reactionary cueing; points and timing of movement changes are unknown. Not to be confused with agility.

Purpose

In the realm of athletics, the powerful, reactive, and efficient movement of the body through space more than once, and in more than one direction, is a highly necessary skill and ability to develop.

The powerful, reactive, and efficient movement of the body through space more than once, and in more than one direction, is a highly necessary skill and ability to develop, says @KoachGreen_. Share on X

Video 1. Multi-Directional Jump.

Combining what was originally viewed via the Elon Sports Performance social media platform, the space we have available, and the continually improving abilities of the youth I work with, we currently have a chart of 30 different multi-jump, multi-directional jumps—The Jump Matrix—that consist of a mix of horizontal (forward/broad), lateral (sideways), diagonal, and rotational jumps which are numbered, assembled, and progressed by complexity and/or inversion.

These 30 variations are used at various times in a training program depending on athlete, sport, training phase, and ability.

Variations #1 and #2 are the simplest renditions of the matrix, and the foundation on which all the subsequent variations are based.

Jump #1 consists of a single horizontal jump immediately followed by a lateral jump.

Jump #2 is the inverse of #1. The athlete begins with a lateral jump immediately followed by a horizontal jump.

All jumps in the matrix, excluding those that require rotations, are performed facing and moving forward.

Shin Angles

Another goal of implementing the Jump Matrix into athletic development programs is to mature the function and robustness of shin angles for deceleration, agility, and change of direction.

Oftentimes, certain aspects of athletic performance—specifically in training—are best left up to trial and error on the part of the athlete. For younger athletes, words sometimes do not do justice in regards to what is expected for any given movement; thus, the athlete must organize themselves without too much, if any, outside assistance.

Oftentimes, certain aspects of athletic performance—specifically in training—are best left up to trial and error on the part of the athlete, says @KoachGreen_. Share on X

Understanding, however simple, the concept and tasks of these multi-contact and multi-directional jumps allows the athletes to maneuver and configure themselves in a way that usually yields the desired outcome: self-organization.

This allows for the foot, ankle and lower leg to get into positions that would otherwise take time elsewhere to reproduce.

Furthermore, the change in direction allows athletes to adjust where, how, and when forces are distributed or neutralized. The change in foot pressure is a major component in athletic performance, as it allows the redirection and faster responses to said force.

Below are still shots of a few Jump Matrix variations right as deceleration, amortization, or redirection forces are occurring. You can see the different lower limb and hip positions—dependent on previous or next movement—these athletes are getting put into.

Application

For the vast majority of the athletes I have the privilege of training—speed/sprint dominant sport athletes—Wednesday (training day 2 or 3 depending on training frequency) is the lower body focus day of the SPS System I utilize, and coincidentally our plyometric focus day as well.

The athletes who go against the grain in this regard are the volleyball athletes I work with. Since volleyball is a jump and agility sport, we invert their high intensity day structure and provide them with two plyometric days (days 1 and 3 or 5) and one speed day mid-week. These individuals also have a lower total volume, since most play school, club, and/or pick-up games and tournaments.

But using the “80/20 Rule,” the majority of the athletes fall into the 2:1 speed:plyo category. Depending on the specific athlete, one to three variations of the matrix will be either done prior to the lifting portion (in the same manner as our speed work where full, freshly-primed efforts can be put into the jumps) or one variation and its inverse can be contrasted with the secondary (primary lift) lower body power/strength-speed movement.

But using the “80/20 Rule,” the majority of the athletes fall into the 2:1 speed:plyo category, says @KoachGreen_. Share on X

Being utilized as the high-intensity speed component of the training session following the dynamic warm-up and movement prep activities, one to three variations of 25-50 total ground contacts will be completed (ground contacts are how volume is calculated for multi-contact jumps, and 25-40 repetitions is the rough range I’ve found to be effective before quality diminishes).

Example plyometric jump set from the Jump Matrix: #3, #7, #15 2x ea.

Individual Jump Volumes:

#3 = 12 contacts (Forward, Forward, Lateral)

#7 = 16 contacts (Forward, Forward, Lateral Forward)

#15 = 20 contacts (Forward, Lateral, Return, Forward, Lateral)

Total Volume: 48 contacts

Also, by adding in other components, like a vertical jump or obstacle (hurdle) jumps or hops before, during, or after the completion of the matrix variation, we can increase complexity.

Traditionally, when multi-contact jumps are the contrast to a lower body strength/power movement, we see those jumps executed in a single-direction. For example:

What I’ve found and become quite fond of for athletic development is that by continuing the use of traditional lower body power and strength lifts (squats, Olympic lifts, hex bar deadlifts/jumps, etc.), and contrasting them with multi-contact and multi-directional jumps, athletes can immediately transfer force production into the various positions and angles that are consistent with the chaos of sport.

Video 2. Lo-Hanging Step-Off Lateral Lunge

In this manner, as stated above, we program one variation, three to six sets of one to three reps on each side.

Return to Play and Extensive Plyometrics

As far as return to play protocols for field and court sports go, extensive plyometrics are a great “bang-for-your-buck” option. They are good for:

• Preparing soft tissue of the lower leg;
• Re-familiarization with ground contact; and
• Immersion back into rhythm and coordination.

With extensive plyometrics, the focus is not covering ground through maximal efforts in any particular direction but rather reducing amortization time and building back the qualities and abilities mentioned above.

Reducing time on the ground while simultaneously increasing the repetitions and frequency of those ground contacts allows the plasticity of soft tissue (tendons, ligaments, and fascia) to mature through the recovery process leading back into full intensity play and training.

Similarly, the increase in ground contacts allows for the bones and joints to familiarize themselves once again with the impacts of the ground at lower intensities that can be increased over time.

Rhythm and coordination are the often-overlooked fourth and fifth qualities of athleticism (along with speed, power, and strength). Without rhythm and coordination, we can visibly see the awkwardness and purely unathletic movement expressions which can lead to injury. With extensive plyos, athletes are able to regain that ability through longer duration patterns, building not only the timing necessary to move fluidly, but also confidence.

Video 3. Applying the Jump Matrix.

Lastly, extensive plyometrics are a great conditioning tool. For the exact same reasons above, extensive plyos, especially for field athletes who may not spend much time jumping, are a great switch from the traditional running modalities that are normally used.

Extensive plyos, especially for field athletes who may not spend much time jumping, are a great switch from the traditional running modalities that are normally used, says @KoachGreen_. Share on X

The Jump Matrix is a great option for younger athletes, athletes returning from long seasons or injury, or introducing more complex plyometric variations, and there are a countless number of variations to be created. Although it is not designed to be a replacement for any traditional quality jumping, it is another highly useful tool in the toolbox.

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

Maintaining progress is hard. Not only are there different protocols to help athletes achieve their goals, but athletes respond differently to the protocols—especially in sprint training. During my playing career, the most common advice I received was: “If you want to get fast, run fast.”

While true, this type of thinking will only take an athlete or coach so far. After improving for a time, the athlete will inevitably reach a training plateau, which may be caused by suboptimal technique, a lack of joint stiffness, or general strength. At this point, the training focus needs to be clarified. This clarification often comes with an increased specificity, whether through drill selection or coaching cues. These drills and cues are often derived from the teachings of elite sprint coaches who train sprinters and can then be insufficient for field sports athletes who, generally speaking, have different body types or experience levels when compared to a traditional sprinter. If the drills and cues are not effective for some athletes, how do we help them continue to progress when they have seemingly leveled out?

If the drills and cues are not effective for some athletes, how do we help them continue to progress when they have seemingly leveled out? Share on X

One way is to apply a horizontal load to the athlete with a weighted sled or tools like the Run Rocket, Vertimax Raptor, or KATN Strength Engine, which can provide external feedback that makes the cues more effective, manage the athlete’s technical deficiencies, lack of coordination, or deficient strength qualities.

Technical Proficiency

Field sport athletes are not required to master sprinting technique to become better at their sport. However, a proficiency can be helpful in achieving higher velocities, which if relevant, can increase sports performance. More importantly, proficient sprinting, when prescribed effectively, exposes the athlete to high rates of force development and higher contractile velocities which can be helpful in preventing injuries.

Now the question becomes how do you start developing proficiency when you are tasked with introducing the athlete to positions that they are not familiar with? Often, the coach is forced to rely on external verbal or tactile cues to encourage the athlete to find the correct positions, i.e., “Push harder into the ground” or “Keep the foot dorsiflexed.”

During my 10 year NFL career, I was coached by dozens of coaches and experienced firsthand the frustration with being unable to improve past a certain point based solely based on the coach-provided cues. And, as a coach in my post-playing career, I now understand the frustration from the other side: you feel you are communicating clearly, but the athlete is still unable to internalize the cue (thus, stunting the athlete’s progress).

One way to circumvent the language barrier—and in my experience the most effective—is to help the athlete feel the position associated with the cue. This allows the athlete and the coach to speak the same language—especially because athletes tend to be kinesthetic learners.

One way to circumvent the language barrier—and in my experience the most effective—is to help the athlete feel the position associated with the cue. Share on X

The question then becomes what is the best way to allow the athlete to feel the position? Isometrics, yielding or overcoming, are tools that not only help the athlete coordinate their position but also help with joint- and angle-specific motor unit recruitment and rate coding (the rate at which the motor unit discharges action potentials).

Perhaps the most common isometric exercise for sprinting are wall drills, which are often used to reinforce the position and tension required during the acceleration phase. While these exercises are outstanding, they can fall short. Often, young athletes get so infatuated with the wall they leave their hips behind, let their chest collapse, or lose postural integrity. One way to get a similar effect is to anchor the athlete from behind like they are pulling a sled—I use the KATN Strength Engine for this, but an anchored chain or cord would also work.

This technique differs from traditional wall drills in that the athlete is held from the back with a cord connected to a belt or chest harness. This different modality allows the athlete not only to feel the correct angle and tension, like a wall drill, but also forces them to stabilize through the hip and midsection in a way that is specific to sprinting. When prescribing this to new athletes, it is often helpful to have them use a dowel or a hurdle to help with balance.

These exercises are also fantastic because they don’t require a lot of space. At the end of most college or professional workouts, there is the required midsection work. Often coaches program anti-rotation exercises like Pallof presses. Now, the Palloff press is an outstanding exercise, but why not use this opportunity to program single leg isometric holds and help your athletes get acclimated to positions relevant to sprinting while working midsection strength?

Once these foundational positions have been established, the athlete can move on to dynamic exercises such as heavy marches or sled pushes. These next exercises allow the athlete to work dynamically through sprint-relevant positions that have been coached isometrically, allowing the athlete to reinforce the specificity of the movement while also learning how to forcefully interact with the ground. This progression helps the athlete learn the tension and rhythms required for sprinting at slower contractile velocities.

Once these foundational positions have been established, the athlete can move on to dynamic exercises such as heavy marches or sled pushes. Share on X

Practical Solutions

As the athlete becomes stronger and more proficient in the required positions, you can reduce the load and determine if the athlete can maintain the correct positions at higher velocities. Once the athlete has reached a competency in the sprinting positions, the coach can work on triaging the elements of the athlete’s sprint.

Let’s look at three examples:

1. The athlete has a long amortization phase. The amortization phase is isometric in nature, occurring when the eccentric phase (or the force absorbing phase) of the ground contact is over and the concentric (or the force application phase) has not yet started. The athlete’s ground contact time will be long; it might look as if they are running in sand. It is important to verbally cue the athlete, i.e., “Be more reactive off the ground.”

However, some athletes—younger or larger athletes—have a difficult time internalizing this cue. To help the athlete internalize the reactive element, providing them with a physical cue can be beneficial. In this case, loading the athlete can be helpful. Often, coaches will prescribe reactive jumps such as pogos or skips to help coordinate the athlete’s reaction off the ground. This is fantastic, because they can show the athlete the requisite tension required when sprinting by increasing ground contact times. Just like the verbal cue, this might not be enough. Having athletes do these reactive jumps under a grounded, moderate horizontal load helps them feel the level of joint stiffness required but also helps condition the athlete’s motor unit patterning and encourage the appropriate rate coding.

Video 1. Loaded pogo jumps.

Video 2. Resisted A-skips.
To help the athlete internalize the reactive element, providing them with a physical cue can be beneficial. Share on X

The line of force should be vertical and horizontal, meaning the line of force should not be directly at the athlete’s waist. It should be anchored to the athlete’s waist or torso and have a line of force that works towards the ground at approximately 45 degrees. This force angle helps the athlete feel the vertical and horizontal force needed while sprinting.

Once they have physically experienced this feeling, the verbal cue is internalized and becomes more effective.

2. The athlete is not imparting force effectively during top end mechanics. Once they are out of the transition phase, it may look as if they are running in place. A common prescription for this issue is alternating bounds. Amongst high level track populations, this is almost an immediate fix. However, with field athletes who are looking to increase speed or athletes who do not have high transmutation ability, bounds under load not only help them feel the vertical and horizontal force required for propulsion, but the added load—whether light or heavy—helps with increased motor unit recruitment, which would be beneficial for coordination and force output. This prescription, in conjunction with an effective coach’s eye, can help the athlete understand the level of focus and force required to be effective at end mechanics.

Video 3. Loaded bounds.

3. The athlete is exhibiting a large amount of back kick while sprinting. Wickets often serve as an excellent corrective exercise in these situations. However, it is not applicable to all athletes. For novice athletes or athletes who are not efficient sprinters, another intervention may be appropriate.

Video 4. Loaded “Running A.”

One such intervention is loading a “Running A” or a repetitive high knee exercise, while coaching a cyclical heel action. With a weighted sled this would be jarring, but a device that provides smoother resistance, such as the Run Rocket or the KATN Strength Engine, would be extremely beneficial. The added tension, though light, helps the athlete feel the stacked position—shoulders over hips, hips over knees, knees over ankles—while also having tension on the leg which, like the loaded bounds, helps with the correct motor unit recruitment pattern.

The added tension, though light, helps the athlete feel the stacked position while also having tension on the leg. Share on X

My experience

My philosophy as a coach is largely shaped by my time as a player. I spent countless hours trying to get faster. I was privileged to work with some of the best coaches. They helped me but I didn’t see a true breakthrough until I was retired and started my own journey in pursuit of speed.

These coaches did everything they could for me. The issue was on my end—I could not internalize what the coach was saying. The coach would prescribe some type of plyometric to build ankle stiffness or a rhythm building exercise to help my coordination and I would do them to the best of my ability, but I know now I was not getting the desired response from the exercise. This is where horizontal loading entered my life. I started loading A-skips, bounds, pogos, broad jumps, and single-leg broad jumps and suddenly I could feel the tension and intent the exercises required.

If I were reading this article and heard a former NFL player talking about his personal experience, I would need more convincing. But let me assure you, I have seen these same principles work with the athletes that I now train. It helps all my athletes—young, old, professional, amateur, big, or small—understand how to coordinate their bodies in a forceful way and find the tension needed to sprint faster. While loading prescriptions are not the best solution for every athlete, they are another tool in the toolbox to help the coach effectively communicate with the athlete and help push past those pesky coaching plateaus.

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

While there are many great coaches putting out helpful information on sprinting and how to run faster, I think we should simply look at what goes into sprinting. There may be others putting out this information in different terms than I do, but this is how my brain works and hopefully it makes sense to some of you as well. Let’s determine what aspects go into sprinting and how to improve them.

I think of sprinting as being made up of three components, which is obviously very simplified. The three buckets I use are:

1. Strength
2. Elasticity
3. Technical

This is not necessarily a way to profile athletes, like neuro-typing or pushers versus pullers or many of the other ways we categorize athletes. I think pretty much all of these are useful as long as we realize most individuals are not just one thing or another but instead are on a spectrum. These tools can be used to identify an athlete’s strengths and weaknesses, and the way I break down sprinting can potentially be a useful tool as well.

1. Strength

Strength, or force, is needed in sprinting to horizontally displace our center of mass. Literally, you need some type of strength to push or pull your body forward. The person who can produce 10 Newtons of force into the ground will move faster and move their body more than the person who can only produce 1 Newton of force into the ground, assuming these two have the same body mass. I could bore all of you with some basic laws of physics, but I think we should all understand that if there is no force being produced, the runner will not move.

One important thing to consider is this should focus more on relative strength. While running, the athlete is fighting gravity pulling on their body mass. If you decide an athlete needs to get stronger, but they gain weight and muscle mass in the process, is that going to be beneficial? Are they going to be able to push their body mass better now, or did it really remain the same?

Barry Ross’ book Underground Secrets To Running Faster might have been the first time I heard this expressed. He wrote at length of the need to improve mass-specific force. You have to be able to move your body weight against gravity. Strength training is great for helping to produce more and more force. Now, a heavy squat might take five seconds from start to finish—a long time to produce force—but while sprinting, the athlete only has fractions of a second to produce force into the ground.

So, being able to produce high amounts of force relative to body weight is definitely important, but only the amount of force that an athlete can produce in one-tenth of a second really matters. An important strength quality to look to develop is power. Power is equal to force multiplied by velocity and takes into account strength and the amount of time the strength is produced.

The main production of force will come from the hip while sprinting, but the knee and ankle both need to be strong and stiff to transfer that force from the hip into the ground. I think of this like I think of playing pool. All of the power used to push the pool cue into the cue ball comes from your arm—specifically, your shoulder. The pool stick itself needs to be strong and stiff in order to transfer that force into the cue ball and move it. If the pool stick is stiff, but not strong—like a dry spaghetti noodle—it will transfer force well but break easily. If the pool stick is resilient, but not stiff—like a cooked spaghetti noodle—then it will not transfer much force, but it will be more difficult to break.

Some of the best methods I use to improve power pair together a strength movement and a speed movement. In the weight room, this could look like a heavy trap bar deadlift for 2-3 quality repetitions—moving as fast as possible—followed by a vertical jump. Use a movement that focuses more on strength and pair it with a movement that focuses more on moving quickly. On the field, for a more running-specific pair of exercises, I like to pair heavy sled or prowler pushes with free sprints. In my experience working with NFL Combine athletes, both of these examples have been staples in our program to help improve power and ultimately improve sprinting speed.

To be a fast sprinter, athletes need to be strong relative to their body weight, produce force quickly, and be strong & stiff down their whole leg to transfer that force into the ground. Share on X

To be a fast sprinter, athletes need to be strong relative to their body weight, produce force quickly, and be strong and stiff down their whole leg in order to transfer that force into the ground.

2. Elasticity

Being elastic typically refers to the stiffness of tendons—elastic athletes are your bouncy, long, and thin athletes. You can see their Achilles tendon pretty much climb from their ankle all the way up to the back of their knee. Strength and elasticity are two common ways we coaches categorize and profile athletes. I think it is, overall, a decent way of doing it; again, realizing they are all on a spectrum and need a balance of training both strength and elasticity.

How do you train elasticity? It is done primarily through plyometrics. Any bounce type of exercise will favor working the tendon over the muscle. Faster movements = more tendon, slower movements = more muscle. Low-level plyometrics like pogo hops, skipping, and line hops are a great way to build a foundation of elastic strength. More advanced exercises like bounds and depth jumps are great to maximize elastic strength.

It is a good idea to utilize low-level plyometrics early in the training cycle to prepare the tissues for the more advanced plyometrics yet to come. Then, progress your athlete from a simple A-skip to alternating bounds and even into assisted alternating bounds. Each progression will increase the amount of force put into the ground and have decreased ground contact times. The faster the ground contact time, the more the athlete is relying on elastic components of their tissue to transfer force into the ground.

Elasticity is important for maximizing sprinting speed because tendons help to transfer force into the ground effectively and efficiently, and they give you “free energy.” Tendons are like rubber bands. A brand-new, straight-out-of-the-pack rubber band is tight and stiff and can get shot across the room by stretching it an inch. That is what you want out of your tendons, minimal stretch or effort needed to go far. An old rubber band found between the couch cushions that is stretched out and loose needs a lot of pulling in order to get shot just to the other side of the room. The more we can improve tendon stiffness and elasticity, the more the athlete can take advantage of the free energy of the tendons and put force into the ground quickly, which we already know the importance of.

3. Technical

The last component I think about when coaching sprinting is technical. One part of this is how running should look, or the shapes an athlete should make while running, and the other is the direction in which they apply force. These two pretty much go hand and hand.

We all have an idea of how sprinting should look. Whether it’s the first step of a sprint or once an athlete is 40 yards down field, we coaches should have an idea of what the sprint motion should look like. I think we all agree that in the start and early acceleration, we should see more of a forward torso angle and more of a piston-like action in the lower leg; then, as they reach max velocity, we should see more of a cyclical motion in the leg and upright torso. Throughout the entire sprint, we want to see a relatively big arm swing, at least behind their body. You may have different ideas or more specific motions you want to see in your athletes, but I think we can agree on these.

Using something as simple as your phone camera to record sprints to more easily see the positions your athlete achieves while sprinting is an effective tool. After you determine what positions need improvement, use drills that get the athlete into these motions. Want more knee lift? Try A-skips. Need more cyclical motion? I like butt kick skipping drills or any clawing and pawing type of techniques. Something as basic as a standing arm drill, working on swinging the arms like they would while running with an emphasis on throwing the hand behind them, is effective to improve that motion.

If there is a certain range of motion you want the athlete to be able to achieve while running, but they cannot get into position, the best way to help them achieve it is with a medical professional: a physical therapist, athletic trainer, massage therapist, or whatever discipline you believe in. Let them assess the issue and what techniques are needed to open up the desired range of motion. Yes, maybe stretching, foam rolling, isometrics, or other strategies may work, but I have always been a big believer in using medical professionals and different specialties when needed.

The reason certain ranges of motion are important to sprinting is that they help provide the direction in which force is being applied. Meaning, if you want the athlete to move forward, they better be able to apply force in such a way that it moves them forward and not in a different direction.

You can apply all the relative force you want and as quickly as Usain Bolt, but if it isn’t being applied in the correct direction, it does you no good, says @Steve20Haggerty. Share on X

We know that, especially in the start of a sprint, force needs to be applied horizontally, but if an athlete does not have the ankle dorsiflexion range of motion to maintain a forward lean and push backward into the ground, then they are going to stand straight up. If you want a big hip flexion range of motion so the leg has more time to travel back toward the ground forcefully, then they better have adequate hip flexion ROM. You can apply all the relative force you want and as quickly as Usain Bolt, but if it is not being applied in the correct direction then it does no good.

Performance Outcomes

By improving strength and power, elasticity with plyometrics, and technical mechanics, you can expect to see improvements in sprinting speeds in your athletes. In this most recent NFL Combine and Pro Day season at Bommarito Performance, we saw an average improvement of .3 seconds in the 40-yard dash, with the best improvement being .6 seconds.

I hope this makes sense to you all. I believe these concepts not only carry over to sprinting, but also jumping, throwing, swinging, punching, changing direction, and pretty much every sport movement. The athlete needs to be able to produce adequate force in the necessary amount of time and in the proper direction.

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

Part of the allure of coaching is that every season is unique. In narrowing the focus to high school track and field, we do have a portion of our athletes who are with us for four years and go through a “typical” progression. However, there are always new athletes in every class at the start of the season. In addition, maturation can make a returning athlete completely different than the year prior—for better or for worse.

Due to the variance in clientele, there are items we choose to emphasize that are specific to the needs of the group. These decisions tend to be made after the first couple of weeks and then are monitored throughout the course of our season. All this being said, the demands of the sprint, hurdle, and jump events remain constant, so the vast majority of what we do year to year is consistent. We tend to follow an 80/10/10 model.

I believe I’ve heard the following breakdown from ALTIS’ Stu McMillan, although his percentages may have been different:

• 80% of items on your training menu should consist of what you know are effective.
• 10% should be items you are confident will be effective.
• 10% should be items you have a hunch will be effective.

What I’ve Added

Here are the items I’ve added over the past few years.

1. Crescendo Plyometrics

Carl Valle did us all a favor by producing numerous pieces on the Scandinavian Rebound Jump Test (SRJT).

Video 1: The SRJT has the athlete focus on progressively jumping higher as the rep progresses while trying to minimize ground contact time throughout. RSI (jump height/ground contact time or flight time/ground contact time) is the primary measurement.

After obtaining a MuscleLab Contact Grid, I began to utilize it and really liked its simplicity and how effective it was at getting athletes to learn to bounce. A lightbulb then clicked for me that it would be a fantastic option to use the same methodology of increasing intensity with all plyometrics. Crescendo skipping, bounding, galloping, and run-run-jumps have become a staple within our weekly programming. There are many reasons why I love them:

• The lower intensity at the beginning of the rep allows for athletes to focus on a technical aspect (such as foot contact), and ideally, it gets locked in before the higher intensity found at the end of the rep.

• Working through a bandwidth of intensities creates an athlete with better awareness of their outputs. I think it is common in track (and training in general) to be hyper-focused on maximal outputs—I certainly love watching athletes sprint and jump maximally! However, I think there is value to exposing athletes to a spectrum of intensity.

I often reference the Rewzon long jump study, brought to my attention by Joel Smith, in which exposure to sub-max efforts allowed for a higher degree of improvement in maximum capability when compared to maximum effort-only training. Working through crescendo reps has the ability to take care of either sub-max-only efforts or sub-max to max efforts!

• I find that they are a more logical way to manage intensities. For example, instead of having an athlete dive right into bounding maximally for eight contacts, a coach could have them focus on being maximal on the last two, then the last four, the last six, and then all eight over a four-week period.

Video 2. Here the crescendo plyometric of choice is a power bound. The athletes were instructed to begin with a 50% effort and work up to 75%.

2. Asymmetric Locomotion

I picked up the idea of asymmetric skipping from Nick Newman about two years ago, and like the crescendo plyometrics, I have applied it to a variety of other forms of locomotion. The asymmetric label comes to be because the goal is to focus on operating at a high intensity on one side and an easier intensity on the other.

Video 3. In this asymmetric skip for distance, I am focusing on operating at a maximum intensity with my left leg and an easy intensity with my right leg.

Here are the reasons I believe asymmetric locomotion has staying power in my programming:

• It is a fantastic bridge between skills. Asking a novice athlete to bound or skip for distance often leads to unattractive visuals. Asking them to focus on pushing hard on one side and easy on the other tends to make for a much more appealing visual. Once they have the feeling of each side, they usually are more able to link the two sides together.

Asymmetric locomotion is a fantastic bridge between skills, says @HFJumps. Share on X

• It is more specific to what they see within their event (referring to the unilateral jumps found in track and field). If I have an athlete who is struggling with projecting their hips to create quality hip displacement, an asymmetric skip or bound for distance is a fantastic way to drill the feeling they need. If any athlete has too shallow of a takeoff angle in long jump, asymmetric skips for height (along with gallops and run-run-jumps for height) would be part of the prescription to help correct that issue.

• If an athlete has a nagging injury on one leg, but the other is fine, asymmetric locomotion is an option that can be considered to ensure there is not a big detraining effect on the healthy leg. Proceed with caution here!

What I’ve Dropped: Minimum Effective Dose

Before the haters of this phrase celebrate—and the lovers throw shade at me—I encourage all to walk down this path with me. First and foremost, this is highly specific to me, and my hope is that those on both sides of the issue can see where I am coming from.

I think the first time I heard the phrase “minimum effective dose” was around 2015. It was a concept that fit the trends I had noticed within the context of training female high school track and field athletes. (I was the head girls’ track coach at the time—the main events I coached were sprints, hurdles, and high jump.) I wrote about this trend in great detail here. I was all-in on the concept, and to this day I feel it is something that the majority of coaches of any sport at all levels need to hear, as junk volume is probably the biggest deterrent to high performance after mental health, diet, and sleep.

In 2016, I made the transition to being an assistant on the boys’ track and field staff, with an emphasis on coaching the long/triple/high jumps and the overlap that occurs with sprinters. I took the idea of minimum effective dose with me to the jumps, which was based on what I saw with the girls I coached and my own personal experience as a jumper (primarily high jump). Simply put, I knew that I never performed well in high jump if I was not feeling bouncy. There was no way for me to just grind through it—and as an athlete, I was a grinder.

The male athletes I coached trained at a very high intensity with low volume, and they performed well. However, if we fast forward to right now, seven years into the position I have with the boys, I can say with 100% certainty that the athletes I coached early on in my current stint were substantially undertrained.

While the ideal is to train every athlete the perfect amount, this is of course a challenge at the high school level, as we are only in direct contact with our athletes for around 5-10% of the time. A few athletes win the “other 22 hours” away from us, but the majority leave a lot of potential gains left on the table. I also subscribe to the Vern Gambetta and Harry Mara idea that I’d rather have an athlete trained at 90% of what is ideal than 1% over what is ideal. My personal problem was I may have trained some of the athletes I coached to 75%.

Here is an example, discussing flying sprints and the horizontal approach. But before that, I will outline some terminology:

• 10-meter fly—A timed 10-meter window preceded by a 20- to 30-meter run-in.
• Approach pop-off—A full approach rehearsal close to realistic penultimate and takeoff steps (rolling contacts). The jumper jumps off the board but lands in the pit upright (not undergoing a full landing).
• Approach run-through—A full approach where the jumper simply runs through the board into the pit. Here, the penultimate and takeoff steps tend to be much less realistic (if they happen at all).

Early on in coaching jumpers, I equated long jump approach rehearsal to a 10-meter fly. So, if the sprint workout of the day was 3-4 x 10m fly, I would have jumpers run 2 x 10m fly and try to get approaches knocked out in three or less. I currently believe the fly-to-approach ratios are:

• Pop-off – 1:1.5 or 1:2
• Run-through – 1:2.5 or 1:3

When the jumper “pops off” the board and takes close to realistic penultimate and takeoff steps, there are greater braking forces than when compared to just “running through” the board. Most of the time, I prefer the jumper to “pop off” in the rehearsal. This is more like an actual jump, and the spacing of those last two steps can vary when compared to when the athlete just runs through. (I’ve seen up to an 18-inch difference.) However, for athletes who need reps to develop consistency in the body of the approach, running through the board makes sense at times to minimize the load presented on the last two steps. It is easiest to do this away from the jump pit, so the athlete is not tempted to pop off into the sand!

The reason that I feel more approaches can be accumulated than 10-meter flys is because a high school athlete typically attains 80-95% of their maximum velocity on the runway. This is due to the steering component from having a takeoff target. The trade-off for greater accuracy is submaximal velocity. Since the velocity is submaximal, the approach is less demanding from a neurological standpoint. Because of the jumper attaining submaximal velocity on the runway (unless there is a huge tailwind), I tend to classify either approach’s rehearsal style as acceleration work instead of maximum velocity work.

By using minimum effective dose as an identifying descriptor of training, I unintentionally undertrained athletes. I am certain this impacted their ability to become technically proficient. Share on X

Circling back to eliminating minimum effective dose as a descriptor of my training, I have found that athletes are able to tolerate quite a bit more acceleration volume than maximum velocity volume. By using minimum effective dose as an identifying descriptor of training, I was unintentionally undertraining athletes. I can say with certainty that this impacted their ability to become technically proficient. I could also argue that key metrics would have been better with a slightly larger training stimulus.

• Old Long Jumper Maximum Velocity Workout
  • 2 x 10m fly
  • 3-4 approach rehearsals

• Current Long Jumper Maximum Velocity Workout A
  • 3 cycles
• 1 x 10m fly, rest 4 minutes
• 2 approach pop-offs, rest 3 minutes between each
• Current Long Jumper Maximum Velocity Workout B
  • 2 cycles
• 1 x 10m fly, rest 4 minutes
• 2 approach run-throughs, rest 3 minutes between each
• 1 cycle
• 1 x 10m fly, rest 4 minutes
• 3-5 approach run-throughs, rest 3 minutes between each
• A current “C” option could be a hybrid of “A” and “B”

Although it is not always possible, I prefer to toggle the maximum velocity work with the approach work (which I view as acceleration work) in this style whenever possible. I think it provides a challenge in coordination, which makes athletes more aware of their different gears. It also helps them deal with the demands presented to them during a meet: two jump attempts, sprint event, back for more jump attempts.

This training toggle-style was a carryover for me from coaching hurdles. Prior to the start of a meet, hurdlers would look great in warm-ups over the hurdles (utilizing a great shuffle technique). Then, they would run in the 4x100m relay and come back to hurdles with normal sprint mechanics, destroying the hurdles (and their bodies) in the process because their stride length was too great between the hurdles.

What Might Be Right for You, May Not Be Right for Some

The above example is how I let the phrase “minimum effective dose” have a negative influence on my training design. I firmly believe that I am in the minority here. Overtraining is certainly more common than undertraining at the high school level, and most likely also at levels below and above. There are no doubt coaches out there who need to hear the minimum effective dose message!

Overtraining is certainly more common than undertraining at the high school level. There are no doubt coaches out there who need to hear the minimum effective dose message, says @HFJumps. Share on X

As a math teacher, I often find myself instructing students to keep in mind where they need to go before they dive in and complete work. This bird’s-eye view often saves them from going down a suboptimal path. We can all better serve our athletes by being as vigilant as possible in seeing the entire picture.

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 posture debate has grown among healthcare practitioners, with arguments being made for and against the validity of “poor postures” and their true impact on an individual. Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on this topic, two chronic postures have become increasingly notorious amidst a growing sedentary population—forward head posture (FHP) and rounded shoulder posture (RSP). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed work and study environments for a large number of us, and thus, there is a greater need to investigate rehabilitation specifically for these two postures.

The incidence of chronic forward head and rounded shoulder posture issues increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a greater need to investigate rehab specifically for these two postures. Share on X

For what has now become a staple of lower extremity rehabilitation, the implementation of neuromuscular integration techniques is considered the standard of care. Regardless of specific diagnosis or injury site, neuromuscular integration (NI) principles are adhered to with exercises designed to challenge an individual’s balance, proprioception, and coordination. Testing methods have even been developed to measure these attributes (which I will discuss later). Yet, we rarely see such emphasis placed on the rehabilitation of upper body dysfunctions.

Specifically, this post will be about the implementation of NI principles for the rehabilitation of these two common upper body postural dysfunctions—forward head (FHP) and rounded shoulder posture (RSP)—targeting the presentation, etiology, traditional treatment methods, and implementation of potential NI techniques.

Defining the Problem

FHP is typified by weakness in the deep cervical flexor muscles, namely the:

• Longus capitis.
• Longus colli.
• Rectus capitis anterior.

Together, these muscles function to create flexion at the atlantooccipital joint and through the cervical spine. This weakness is accompanied by overactivity of the semispinalis cervicis and capitis muscles, in particular, which leads to an anterior head protrusion, whereby an individual’s head extends forward and in front of their torso. This is colloquially referred to as text neck.

RSP presents as an upward and rounded shoulder presentation of the individual, almost causing the chest to appear concave from the elevation and anterior tilt of the scapular, and internal rotation of the scapular and humerus. This is caused by weakness in those scapular downward rotators, such as the middle and lower trapezius, as well the serratus anterior, which helps to posteriorly tilt the scapular to keep it attached to the thoracic cavity. A common compensatory component of RSP is overactivity of the:

• Upper trapezius.
• Levator scapulae.
• Pectoralis major/minor muscles.

We see these postures showing links to common presentations such as increased pain, decreased strength and range of motion, decreased upper extremity stability, reduced respiratory function, and muscle activation issues that impact the scapular kinematics. And, etiologically speaking, these postural abnormalities can be a precursor to pathologies such as temporomandibular joint dysfunction, chronic neck pain, thoracic outlet syndrome, scapular dyskinesis, and shoulder overuse injuries.

These two postural ailments present in a large number of individuals. FHP has been reported to affect 66% of healthy individuals aged 20-50 years of age, with RSP impacting anywhere from 66%-73% of individuals. The increase in sedentary lifestyle habits is often cited as a causing factor, with individuals hunched over screens and keyboards for large lengths of time. Couple this causation with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has altered the way many of us go to work or school, and the need for heightened awareness on this topic is paramount.

Identifying Solutions

Traditional rehabilitation techniques have focused on treating the presentations in isolation—strengthening the underactive muscles and stretching the overactive muscles. For FHP, this meant strengthening exercises such as the chin tuck (or “double chin”) and stretching the cervical extensors that cause that stooped head posture. The RSP treatment commonly saw strengthening of the periscapular muscles and humeral external rotators, while stretching the aforementioned overactive muscles present in RSP.

And that was it.

No postural cueing or training, no integration with functional movements, and no addressing of global muscles groups. Although positive results have been seen with this method, treating in isolation has long fallen out of favor in lower extremity rehabilitation, and I believe upper extremity postural rehabilitation should follow suit.

Treating presentations in isolation has long fallen out of favor in lower extremity rehabilitation, and I believe upper extremity postural rehab should follow suit. Share on X

Neuromuscular integration approaches have clinicians adopt a more holistic approach to rehabilitation by:

• Optimizing an individual’s ability to stabilize joints and posture.
• Improving muscle activation patterns.
• Better reacting to proprioceptive changes.

This training philosophy has been shown to improve proprioception and stability and induce improvements in isokinetic strength while being used extensively in lower extremity rehabilitation.

Lower Extremity Work

Lower extremity work has routinely incorporated neuromuscular principles into rehabilitation protocols for a variety of injuries. Take anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures, for example. For exercise prescription immediately post-op, patients are often prescribed a series of open-kinetic chain exercises where they will have no weight-bearing limits. As strength, range of motion, and activation patterns improve, the patient will be progressed to weight-bearing activities such as assisted gait and balance exercises—early-stage neuromuscular integration implementation. Eventually, patients will progress to a variety of single leg tasks and plyometric exercises with a heavy focus on proprioception and limb/joint awareness—particularly, limiting knee valgus patterns.

Fast-forward to end stage rehabilitation, where many return-to-play requirements involve specific neuromuscular control tests such as the Y-balance test. The Y-balance test is an objective neuromuscular control measurement test consisting of an individual utilizing a single-leg stance to reach in three different planes of motion while satisfying certain performance requirements. The test is repeated on both involved and uninvolved limbs, and depending on the clinic or testing facility, a certain percentage of limb symmetry is required for clearance. Research has been done linking these neuromuscular asymmetries as predictors of future injury and even linking lower limb neuromuscular control to upper extremity injuries.

Upper Extremity Work

As you can see, there are clearly defined stages and instances where neuromuscular control is both trained and assessed in lower extremity rehabilitation protocols. Upper extremity neuromuscular protocols, on the other hand, are in their infancy.

An obvious limitation here is that the lower limb is used for gait and weight bearing due to our bipedal nature; as such, we cannot compare apples to apples. However, a level of stability and proprioception is required to complete activities of daily living and other sporting and performance tasks. Scapular dyskinesis testing is common to measure scapula-humeral rhythm to assess activation patterns during arm elevation tasks, and this test has specific criteria for qualification, although interpretation of these criteria is subjective in nature.

The upper quarter Y-balance test, which was developed by Gray Cook and Phil Plisky at Functional Movement Systems, is a more objective measure. It evaluates an individual’s ability to perform reaching movements while in the up position of a push-up. Similar to the lower extremity Y-balance test, participants must reach in three directions—medial, inferolateral, and superolateral—but we have to question the applicability of this test for the assessment of daily functionality and athletic performance.

Circling back to posture-based rehabilitation protocols for FHP and RSP, exercises have generally been isolated in nature, focusing on a single plane of movement and often a single muscular group to perform the movement. As such, further investigation into the implementation of neuromuscular principles for the treatment of upper extremity postural-based rehabilitation was necessary to probe the efficacy, applicability, and scope of these techniques.

Measurement Standards in the Research

Dr. David Anderson (San Francisco State University) and I performed an extensive literature search to examine this exact issue; these broad literature searches yielded 392 potential papers, which we then put through a variety of inclusion/exclusion criteria guidelines to finish with six eligible articles: four reporting on FHP and two on RSP.

Articles had to incorporate rehabilitation principles that were deemed to constitute neuromuscular integration, which was defined as utilizing rehabilitation methods that were more than just isolated strengthening and stretching techniques. This could include techniques such as proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) exercises, methods incorporating proprioception or stability training, and even core stability exercises to make rehabilitation more global in nature.

FHP is commonly measured by a technique called craniovertebral angle (CVA), which involves a subject having their photograph taken from a lateral angle, and the resultant photo is analyzed. This analysis involves two important landmarks:

1. The seventh cervical vertebrae (C7).
2. The tragus of the ear.

Once the photo is generated, a perpendicular line is drawn through the C7 vertebrae, and the angle from that intersection point to the tragus of the ear is measured. This process can be done manually or through a free software program such as Kinovea (used in image 1 below). CVA has been shown to be valid and reliable, and it is considered the gold standard of FHP measurement.

Unlike FHP, RSP has no gold standard measurement for practitioners to use. We have used various methods to analyze RSP, each with their own flaws. The plumb line method doesn’t account for forward torso lean originating in the lower extremity and provides a cue for participants to use and address their posture. This is referred to as the Hawthorne effect—the notion that an individual will modify their behavior when they know they are being observed. An individual can use this plumb line as a reference point for their own posture, ultimately changing their natural stance, which will impact shoulder measurement marks.

Research has also incorporated supine techniques using a table to measure the distance in which the shoulders come off the table. Obvious flaws here include the table providing a resting position for the participant whereby gravity assists them into a “better” posture, and also that this technique does not measure a posture in a way that reflects daily life.

One method that does have promise, though, is the scapular index (SI) method, which uses a tape measure to measure two distances:

1. Sternal notch to coracoid process (A).
2. C7 vertebrae to posterior, lateral acromion (B).

Distance (A) is divided by distance (B) and then the answer is multiplied by 100 for a raw score. This method is obviously prone to the Hawthorne effect—whereby participants know they are being measured—but from an anatomical and functional standpoint, I believe it holds the most potential to accurately measure RSP without the use of expensive or motion capture equipment.

For FHP, a combination of stabilization and strengthening exercises^1–3 and a denneroll traction device were used in conjunction with neuromuscular integration techniques⁴. The RSP studies utilized two different methodologies: one saw investigated single bout neuromuscular stretching techniques⁵, and the other implemented FHP techniques to measure their effects on RSP⁶.

There is one key limitation to this study’s findings: we have an established method of posture measurement for FHP, but no gold standard for RSP. There is a large need for universality when it comes to accurately and reliably measuring this posture.

The Results

Neuromuscular integration approaches were shown to be beneficial for the treatment of FHP in three out of four studies, regardless of the delivery style for the neuromuscular integration principles. One study saw improvements in CVA and respiratory function through the use of McKenzie techniques, another saw improvements in CVA with a combination of neuromuscular techniques and traction, and the third successful study used DNS techniques to yield CVA results (with the unsuccessful study being the shortest intervention period of only four weeks).

The two studies looking at RSP, however, varied in their methods for measuring RSP. One study was an acute intervention with post-testing occurring immediately after the single bout of exercise, and the other study implemented FHP-specific exercises to see the impact they had on RSP. The immediate intervention group split 40 participants into four groups with varying stretching and release techniques. Of these, the group that utilized contract-relax PNF techniques saw significant variance in pectoralis minor index scores (a measure of RSP).

Takeaways

A neuromuscular integration approach to the treatment of postural disorders provides mixed results and needs to be investigated further. Evidence suggests that such techniques are effective for FHP, but such efficacy is left to be desired for RSP. The lack of results for RSP interventions could at least partially be explained by the limitation listed earlier: lack of uniformity in testing procedures.

Promising results for FHP patients provides the rationale to further investigate the role neuromuscular integration techniques can plan on the alleviation of upper body disorders. Share on X

Examining the correlations postural dysfunction can have on physiological components, such as breathing and cardiovascular measures, further highlights the importance of correct diagnosis of these postures separate to the functional ramifications. Promising results for FHP patients provide the rationale to further investigate the role neuromuscular integration techniques can play on the alleviation of upper body disorders. As more valid and reliable RSP measurement techniques become available, we envision similar trends.

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. Bae, W.-s., Lee, K.-C., and Lee, D.-Y. “The Effects of Dynamic Neuromuscular stabilization Exercise on Forward Head Posture and Spine Posture.” Medico Legal Update. 2019;19(2):670–675.

2. Kim, S., Jung, J., and Kim, N. “The effects of McKenzie exercise on forward head posture and respiratory function.” The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy. 2019;31(6):351–357.

3. Szczygiel, E., Blaut, J., Zielonka-Pycka, K., et al. “The Impact of Deep Muscle Training on the Quality of Posture and Breathing.” Journal of Motor Behavior. 2018;50(2):219–227.

4. Moustafa, I.M., Diab, A.A., Hegazy, F., and Harrison, D.E. “Does improvement towards a normal cervical sagittal configuration aid in the management of cervical myofascial pain syndrome: a 1-year randomized controlled trial.” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2018;19(1):396.

5. Birinci, T., Mustafaoglu, R., Kaya Mutlu, E., and Razak Ozdincler, A. “Stretching exercises combined with ischemic compression in pectoralis minor muscle with latent trigger points: A single-blind, randomized, controlled pilot trial.” Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practices. 2020;38:101080.

6. Do Youn Lee, C.W.N., Sung, Y.B., Kim, K., and Lee, H.Y. “Changed in rounded shoulder posture and forward head posture according to exercise methods.” Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2017;29(10):1824–1827.